R v APZ

An appellate complaint about trial counsel’s conduct will not render a conviction unsafe merely because another advocate might have made different tactical choices. The applicant must show identifiable errors or irregularities which made the conviction unsafe. Decisions made reasonably on the defendant’s clear instructions, including decisions contrary to counsel’s advice, will not ordinarily establish advocacy incompetence.

Where the trial was fair, the judge’s directions and summing-up are unchallenged, and the central issue was the credibility of the competing accounts, the assessment remains for the jury. An application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal should be refused where the delay is insufficiently justified and the proposed conviction appeal is not reasonably arguable.

R v APZ concerned an application for a 375-day extension of time and renewed leave to appeal convictions for oral rape of the applicant’s son, a child under 13. The applicant had been convicted at Woolwich Crown Court by a 10–1 majority and received a Special Custodial Sentence of 14 years.

The defence at trial was denial. It alleged that the complainants’ mother had coached the children to make false allegations, potentially to assist her financial-remedy proceedings. The proposed appeal contended that the convictions were unsafe because trial counsel’s handling of five evidential matters misrepresented the defence and exposed the jury to irrelevant or prejudicial material. One issue also concerned evidence suggesting that another person, called ‘Uncle Charles’, might have abused the younger complainant.

The central issue was whether the alleged advocacy failings, viewed against the conduct of the trial as a whole, created identifiable error or irregularity capable of rendering the convictions unsafe.

1. The applications were refused. The court declined both the substantial extension of time and leave to appeal because the proposed appeal was not reasonably arguable and an extension was not in the interests of justice.

2. The alleged failings by trial counsel did not establish incompetence or an unsafe conviction. The applicant had given clear and active instructions concerning the disclosure of his domestic-abuse caution and the questions to be asked of witnesses. Counsel had advised against admitting the caution, but was entitled to act on the applicant’s informed instructions. Other challenged decisions, including whether to pursue the 2016 complaints, were legitimate tactical judgments about evidence capable of assisting or harming the defence.

3. The court rejected the contention that the pre-recorded cross-examination of the first complainant had misstated the defence. The agreed ground-rules approach prevented a direct allegation that the events had not occurred, in order to avoid the child disengaging. The applicant had approved the questions and attended the section 28 cross-examination.

4. The exclusion of the ‘Uncle Charles’ material did not found an advocacy complaint. Trial counsel had sought to pursue the evidence, but the trial judge ruled it inadmissible hearsay and of limited relevance because it concerned different alleged conduct. The applicant did not challenge that ruling or the judge’s directions or summing-up.

5. Fundamentally, the jury had to decide whether it was sure of the complainant’s account despite the applicant’s denial and his allegation of maternal manipulation. It heard evidence relevant to that suggested motive and differentiated between the allegations: it convicted on the counts concerning the first complainant but could not reach a verdict on the count concerning the second. There was no identifiable trial error or irregularity that rendered the convictions unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v APZ, [2025] EWCA Crim 152, refused an extension of time and renewed leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: On 14 October 2022, convicted the applicant by a 10–1 majority of two counts of oral rape of a child under 13. On 18 November 2022, imposed a Special Custodial Sentence of 14 years.