R v Aafan Ber Mirza

A renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction may be refused where the grounds disclose no arguable error and are wholly without merit. A substantial delay need not be separately resolved where the application fails on its merits.

Where an unmeritorious criminal application wastes court resources, the court may order payment of reasonable transcript costs under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The applicant was convicted at Leicester Crown Court of threatening another person with a machete, contrary to section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment and made subject to a restraining order.

More than three and a half years later, he renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by the single judge. He also sought to adduce fresh evidence from a proposed witness under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The central issue was whether any ground disclosed an arguable basis for challenging the conviction.

1. The court refused the application for an extension of time and the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. It adopted the single judge’s reasons and held that all seven grounds were wholly without merit.

2. The sole issue at trial was the identity of the person who threatened the complainant with a machete. The complainant knew and recognised the applicant. His account was supported by his immediate report to his wife and by evidence that the applicant’s clothing when arrested matched the description. The proposed grounds disclosed no evidential or procedural error capable of rendering the conviction unsafe.

3. There was no record of the alleged emergency-call evidence or of any judicial ruling concerning it. No basis existed for the suggested contempt proceedings, and no application had been made at trial to call the additional proposed witness. The applicant also failed to identify proposed fresh evidence from Iqbal Mirza that could assist the appeal.

4. Relying on R v Gray & Ors [2014] EWCA Crim 2372, the court held that this was an unmeritorious application wasting time and resources. Under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, it ordered the applicant to pay £111.32 for the transcript within 28 days.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction were refused. A transcript-cost order was made under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
• Crown Court at Leicester: The applicant was convicted on 7 August 2020 and, on 11 August 2020, sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment and made subject to a restraining order for four years and six months.