R v FO

An extension of time for applying for leave to appeal against conviction may be refused where no good reason is given for substantial delay and the proposed grounds disclose no arguable challenge. The court may nevertheless examine the merits before deciding whether an extension should be granted. A conviction does not require DNA evidence. The issue is whether the jury were sure of guilt on the evidence properly before them. Complaints about trial management, interpretation or advocacy will not justify an appeal where the matters were addressed at trial and the directions and summing-up fairly presented the prosecution and defence cases.

Following his conviction at the Central Criminal Court on 21 June 2023 for numerous sexual offences against his stepson and daughter, the applicant sought an extension of approximately 198 days to apply for leave to appeal against conviction.

He relied on five grounds, concerning the meaning of a Farsi word in a text message, trial management and interpretation, the conduct of his barrister, and the absence of DNA evidence. The central question was whether any ground was arguable and capable of affecting the safety of the convictions, and whether the delay should be extended.

1. The court refused the approximately 198-day extension of time. The applicant had provided no good reason for the delay. The court nevertheless considered the proposed grounds because merit might have justified granting an extension.
2. The first ground concerned the meaning of a Farsi word used in a text message. The issue was peripheral and did not arguably affect the safety of the convictions.
3. Grounds 2 and 3 concerned the tone requested during cross-examination, a trial delay and the appointment of a new interpreter. Those matters had been dealt with during the trial. The directions and summing-up were full and fair, and no arguable flaw in the trial was identified.
4. The complaint about counsel's closing speech was not arguable. Although the speech lasted three hours, the summing-up fairly put the applicant's case to the jury.
5. The absence of DNA evidence did not prevent conviction. A conviction could properly be based on the evidence heard by the jury if they were sure that the applicant was guilty. The jury had accepted the complainants' evidence and rejected the applicant's account.

None of the grounds disclosed an arguable basis for challenging the convictions. Leave to appeal was refused, as was the extension of time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 21 November 2025, refused an extension of approximately 198 days and refused leave to appeal against conviction.
• Central Criminal Court: On 21 June 2023, convicted the applicant of sexual offences against his stepson and daughter.