R v Asim Abdulrasul

A renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction may be refused where the further grounds merely repeat material already considered, amount to disagreement with the jury’s conclusions, and disclose no arguable basis on which the convictions could be challenged. Proposed fresh evidence which was available for use at trial, or which would not arguably render the convictions unsafe even if admitted, does not provide a basis for granting leave.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Birmingham to possessing an article with a blade or point and to wounding with intent. He was convicted after trial of attempted murder and controlling or coercive behaviour towards his wife, and received an extended sentence of 29 years for attempted murder.

He sought, 115 days out of time, to renew an application for leave to appeal against conviction after the Single Judge had refused both an extension of time and leave. His grounds relied on a late change of legal representatives, Family Court proceedings, proposed financial and witness evidence, and his assertion that he intended to scar, rather than kill, the complainant. The central issue was whether the further material disclosed any arguable ground of appeal.

1. Leave to appeal was refused. The court agreed entirely with the Single Judge’s detailed and comprehensive analysis. The renewed grounds and supporting statement largely repeated matters already considered or simply disagreed with the jury’s conclusions. They disclosed no arguable ground of appeal.

2. The proposed explanation for the 115-day delay did not justify an extension of time. There was no evidence that the applicant’s solicitor had undertaken to lodge an appeal. That account was implausible and was contradicted by trial counsel’s confirmation that the applicant had been advised that an appeal lacked merit.

3. The late change in legal representation did not show that the defence had been unable to prepare for trial. The replacement team had conferred with the applicant, served a detailed defence statement, had further opportunities to prepare, and cross-examined the complainant at length on the matters later raised.

4. The proposed fresh evidence was not appropriately admitted. The financial records and the proposed evidence from the applicant’s friends were available before trial, and no adequate explanation had been given for their absence. In any event, the financial records were not inconsistent with the complainant’s evidence, while the proposed evidence concerning facial scarring would not arguably render the conviction unsafe in light of the CCTV evidence and the applicant’s own trial evidence.

5. The jury had a clear evidential basis for finding an intent to kill: the applicant pursued the complainant, used a knife to inflict at least eight blows to her head and upper body, and stopped only when members of the public intervened. The convictions therefore remained unchallenged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction: [2025] EWCA Crim 583.
• Crown Court at Birmingham — The applicant pleaded guilty to possessing an article with a blade or point and wounding with intent. He was convicted after trial of attempted murder and controlling or coercive behaviour, and was sentenced on 15 December 2023.