R v Mansoor Khan

For a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, the applicant must show an arguable basis for concluding that the conviction is unsafe. Later evidence of mental illness or general mental decline does not, without addressing the applicant’s capacity at the time of the offence and guilty plea, establish such a basis. The court may consider the circumstances in which the plea was entered, including repeated appearances with legal representation, when assessing alleged incapacity or failure by lawyers to investigate mental health. A very substantial delay supports refusal of a time extension where the proposed appeal is unarguable.

On 1 June 2010, the applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Guildford to putting a person in fear of violence by harassment, contrary to section 4(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He received a fine, a costs order and an indefinite restraining order.

He later sought a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, an extension of time of 5,146 days, and permission to adduce fresh evidence. His present wife, appointed as his legal deputy by the Court of Protection, pursued the applications on his behalf. The proposed grounds alleged lack of capacity to commit the offence and unfitness to plead, relying principally on a psychiatric report prepared in 2015 for other proceedings. The central issue was whether that material established an arguable basis for finding the conviction unsafe.

The court, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Picken, agreed completely with the single judge’s assessment. The proposed challenge raised two distinct questions: whether the applicant lacked capacity to commit the harassment offence in 2009, and whether he lacked capacity to plead guilty in 2010.

1. The psychiatric report identified an underlying mental health illness dating back several years, but expressed no opinion that the applicant lacked capacity at either relevant time. Its observation that a general decline could include periods of relative deterioration and improvement did not establish incapacity in 2009 or 2010.
2. The report arose from proceedings concerning offences of a different nature. The court therefore treated it as insufficient to show that the conviction was arguably unsafe or that the applicant had been unfit to plead.
3. The circumstances also provided no arguable basis for alleging that the applicant’s lawyers had failed in their duties. He had been interviewed with a solicitor, had appeared before the Crown Court on five occasions, and had been represented by an experienced solicitor advocate and counsel. The court considered that any apparent reason to investigate incapacity was unlikely to have been overlooked throughout those proceedings.
4. The applicant’s earlier guilty pleas to dishonesty offences, entered after the onset of his mental health difficulties, were also noted. No challenge had been made to those convictions.

The court refused the application for an extension of time, given the very substantial delay and the unarguable nature of the proposed appeal. It refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and the application to adduce fresh evidence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 29 January 2026, the court refused the application for a 5,146-day time extension, the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and the application to adduce fresh evidence: [2026] EWCA Crim 131.
2. Crown Court at Guildford: On 1 June 2010, the applicant pleaded guilty to the harassment offence and was fined, ordered to pay prosecution costs and made subject to an indefinite restraining order.