R v Izzet Kirmizigil

An extension of time to renew an application for leave to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable challenge and there is no basis to doubt the safety of the conviction or sentence. A conviction may safely rest on the combined force of direct and circumstantial evidence proving knowledge and intent. In a joint trial, admission of an accused’s bad character evidence may be an inevitable consequence of a cut-throat defence where the evidence is relevant to the co-accused’s credibility. A substantial sentencing uplift may be justified by a significant role in a large-scale Class A drug operation, an exceptionally large quantity and serious previous offending.

The applicant was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court on 9 December 2022 of possessing 45 kg of heroin with intent to supply. He was sentenced to 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. After a Single Judge refused permission, he renewed applications for extensions of 580 days in relation to conviction and 323 days in relation to sentence.

He alleged that his conviction was unsafe, that evidence of his German conviction had wrongly been admitted, that the prosecution should have pursued a lesser charge, and that his sentence was excessive. The central issue was whether the proposed challenges were arguable and whether any useful purpose would be served by extending time.

Mr Justice Soole, giving the judgment of the court, refused both applications for extensions of time.

1. Conviction. There was no arguable ground of appeal and no basis to doubt the safety of the conviction. The combination of the applicant’s identification on CCTV and the circumstantial evidence provided a very strong basis for the jury to be sure of every element of the offence, including knowledge and intent.
2. Bad character evidence. The applicant and his co-accused had advanced cut-throat defences. The admission of the applicant’s previous conviction was the inevitable consequence of the defence he had chosen to run against his co-accused. The evidence had been admitted following an application on her behalf, and the trial judge had given appropriate directions concerning the evidence relating to the alleged drug dealer.
3. Sentence. The challenge to sentence rested principally on the asserted wrongfulness of the conviction. Once the conviction was found safe, that argument could not support an appeal against sentence. In any event, the sentencing judge was plainly right to find that the applicant had played a significant role and that the harm fell within the highest category. A substantial uplift was required to reflect the sheer quantity of heroin and the applicant’s serious previous offending in Germany.
4. Since there was no arguable challenge to either conviction or sentence, no useful purpose would be served by granting the lengthy extensions sought. Leave to extend time was refused in each case.

• Snaresbrook Crown Court: on 9 December 2022, the applicant was convicted of possession of 45 kg of heroin with intent to supply and sentenced to 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): following refusal by the Single Judge, the court refused extensions of time for applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 638.