R v Ireneusz Mikolajczyk

When an applicant seeks a substantial extension of time to appeal a criminal conviction, the court must decide whether an extension is in the interests of justice. It should examine the proposed grounds so that refusal does not cause significant injustice, particularly where a substantial sentence remains. The longer the delay, the more substantial the justification required. An application should not be used to re-litigate issues available at trial or to invite the appellate court to second-guess the jury. Where the proposed grounds lack substantial merit and do not make it reasonably arguable that the conviction is unsafe, an extension of time and leave to appeal should be refused.

The applicant was convicted unanimously at Wolverhampton Crown Court on 16 February 2012 of two murders and received concurrent life sentences with a minimum term of 34 years, less time spent on remand.

He renewed an application for an extension of 4,472 days to seek leave to appeal against conviction after a Single Judge refused the application. He relied on alleged failings in the investigation and prosecution, inadequate legal representation, translation errors, evidence said to support his case, intimidation by a co-defendant, and other challenges to the evidence. The central issues were whether the delay was justified and whether the proposed grounds made the safety of the convictions reasonably arguable.

The court unanimously refused the application for an extension of time and the underlying application for leave to appeal.

1. Extension of time. The court adopted the Single Judge’s reasoning. The guiding principle, stated in Thorsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1, is that an extension should be granted only where it is in the interests of justice. The court must consider the substantive grounds so that refusal does not cause significant injustice. Substantial grounds are required, and the burden becomes more onerous as the delay increases. The explanations offered did not begin to justify a delay of more than 12 years.
2. Safety of the convictions. The applicant’s 25 grounds were properly categorised and rejected for the reasons given by the Single Judge. The convictions were supported by overwhelming evidence, including the applicant’s presence in the victims’ home and his blood on both murder weapons. His instructions had also changed on several occasions.
3. The proposed grounds largely raised matters available at trial and rejected by the jury. The Court of Appeal does not re-try a case or second-guess the jury’s verdict. A delayed proposed witness did not appear to provide exculpatory evidence. Complaints concerning CCTV, forensic timing, fingerprints, DNA, shoeprints, translation, alleged intimidation, investigation, and trial procedure did not undermine the convictions. A prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker for that reason.
4. It was not reasonably arguable that the convictions were unsafe. The renewed application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal were therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The renewed application for an extension of time and the underlying application for leave to appeal were refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 1232.
• Single Judge — The initial application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was refused.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton — The applicant was convicted unanimously of two murders on 16 February 2012 and sentenced to concurrent life imprisonment terms with a minimum term of 34 years, less time served on remand.