R v Bhadresh Gohil & Anor

On a renewed application for leave to appeal, an adjournment should be granted only where good reason is shown and vacating the hearing accords with the interests of justice. Where grounds were settled by counsel, lodged and considered by a single judge, preparation ordinarily need address those grounds only. A vacation application cannot be used to obtain time to reassess the entire proceedings or perfect materially different grounds without an application to amend. The court may refuse oral submissions that go beyond the notified application where the opposing party lacks a fair opportunity to respond. Delay, wasted judicial resources, prejudice to other parties and the prosecution’s legitimate interest in finality are relevant considerations.

The court considered an application by James Ibori to vacate the listed hearing of his renewed application for leave to appeal against a confiscation order of approximately £101 million made by HHJ Tomlinson on 24 July 2023. A single judge refused leave on 14 November 2024, and Ibori renewed the application on 18 November 2024. The hearing was listed with Bhadresh Gohil’s renewed application concerning an approximately £28 million confiscation order. Shortly before the hearing, solicitors sought directions for a later hearing and time for newly instructed leading counsel to review the extensive confiscation proceedings and perfect the grounds. The central issue was whether there was good reason to adjourn and whether vacating the hearing would accord with the interests of justice.

The court refused Ibori’s application to vacate the hearing.

1. Scope of the renewed application. The application was a renewal of the grounds of appeal previously settled by Mr Krolick. Those were the grounds before the court and had already been considered and refused by the single judge. In the absence of an application to amend, they defined the scope of the hearing. Preparation therefore did not require a fresh review of the 12-year confiscation proceedings, the extensive transcripts or the underlying evidence.
2. No good reason for adjournment. The correspondence did not establish why instruction of counsel had to await settlement of earlier fees. Nor was there evidence that Ibori lacked funds other than those subject to the restraint order. Even assuming that relevant instructions could be given only after 19 September, newly instructed counsel had sufficient time to prepare the existing grounds. The complexity of the background did not prevent adequate preparation.
3. Prejudice and administration of justice. Vacating the hearing would cause substantial further delay, waste the court’s reading time and resources, and prejudice the proper administration of justice. The prosecution had a legitimate interest in finality. There was also a real possibility of prejudice to Mr and Mrs Gohil because related family proceedings had been stayed pending resolution of the renewed applications.
4. Fair notice. The court declined to permit further oral submissions which might go beyond the two notified letters, since the Crown had not had a fair opportunity to consider or answer those matters. The court took account of points arising from the Crown’s response but guarded against the introduction of new grounds by means of an adjournment application. It also described the failure to give prompt notice of counsel’s attendance as entirely unsatisfactory and emphasised that court orders must be complied with.

The application was refused. The court indicated that it was minded to grant both applicants limited leave on specified points, but that issue was not determined by this ruling.

1. Confiscation proceedings: HHJ Tomlinson made confiscation orders against Ibori and Gohil on 24 July 2023. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.
2. Single judge: Leave to appeal was refused on 14 November 2024. Ibori renewed his application on 18 November 2024.
3. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused Ibori’s application to vacate the hearing listed for the renewed leave applications. The merits of the renewed applications were not determined in the supplied ruling.