R v Sebastian Jack Iszczylowicz

An application for leave to appeal against conviction will fail where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable basis for concluding that the conviction is unsafe. The court will assess the trial evidence, directions and alleged procedural defects in their proper context. Evidence that drugs were found in the cab driven by the applicant was capable of supporting the jury’s finding of knowledge. Complaints about the presentation of photographs, alleged overseas searches, legal representation, and a case-management judge’s conduct did not disclose an arguable ground in this case.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Canterbury of fraudulent evasion of a prohibition, contrary to section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, after 25 kilograms of heroin were found in the cab of the lorry he was driving into Dover. He was sentenced to 11 years and six months’ imprisonment.

Following refusal by a single judge, he renewed his application for a 69-day extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction. He denied knowing of the drugs and relied on the positioning of bags shown in photographs, an asserted French search, the absence of organised-crime links, insufficiency of evidence, alleged deficiencies in representation, and alleged bias by a judge at the plea and trial preparation hearing.

1. The court refused both the extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction. None of the proposed grounds had an arguable basis for showing that the conviction was unsafe.
2. The evidence concerning the photographs was fairly left to the jury. Officer Harper could not recall the precise position of the black holdall or whether other items had obscured it. The trial judge had specifically directed the jury not to be misled by the photograph’s front-facing presentation, but to decide whether the bags and drugs would have been obvious to the applicant in the lorry.
3. There was no evidence that the lorry had been searched in France. In any event, a search does not necessarily reveal all items concealed in a lorry.
4. The drugs were found in the cab in which the applicant had been the sole driver. That was evidence on which the jury could be sure that he knew of the relevant materials. If the jury were sure of his connection with the drugs, it was open to infer that an organisation lay behind the importation, notwithstanding his asserted lack of organised-crime links.
5. The complaints about representation were contradicted by the response obtained after waiver of legal professional privilege. Important points had been advanced for the defence and there was no indication of poor representation. The plea and trial preparation judge’s question whether the applicant maintained his not-guilty plea was proper and did not show bias.

The court therefore formally refused the extension of time and the application for leave to appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction: [2025] EWCA Crim 219.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: following a jury trial before His Honour Judge Weekes, convicted the applicant on 19 October 2023 of fraudulent evasion of a prohibition and sentenced him to 11 years and six months’ imprisonment.
• Single judge: refused the initial application for leave to appeal, after which the applicant renewed the application before the full court.