R v Anyawu Chuku

On a renewed application for extensions of time to seek leave to appeal conviction and sentence, a lengthy extension should be refused where no good reason is shown and it would serve no useful purpose. Material already deployed at trial in legal argument is not fresh evidence for the purposes of section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. A guilty-plea conviction appeal is not arguable where the grounds are meritless and an inadequate-representation ground is unsupported by a waiver of privilege despite prompting. A sentence appeal is unarguable where consecutive terms are justified by the offending and breach of a suspended sentence, with proper reductions for individual sentences and totality. In those circumstances the convictions are not arguably unsafe and the sentence is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

This was a renewed non-counsel application following refusal by a single judge. The applicant sought an extension of 512 days to seek leave to appeal conviction and a further three months to renew an application for an extension of 546 days to seek leave to appeal sentence. He had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook to sexual communication with a child, breaches of a sexual offences prevention order and failure to comply with notification requirements. He was sentenced to an overall term of 27 months’ imprisonment, including activation of part of a suspended sentence. The proposed conviction appeal challenged phone evidence, representation and the absence of a victim statement. The sentence appeal challenged consecutive terms. The central issues were whether time should be extended and whether either proposed appeal was arguable.

1. The court refused the extensions of time. There was no good reason for the lengthy extensions sought, and granting them would serve no useful purpose (para [18]).
2. The proposed fresh evidence relating to the smartphone had already been deployed at trial by counsel in legal argument. It therefore did not qualify as fresh evidence for the purposes of section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, and the application to adduce it was refused (para [14]).
3. The grounds against conviction were entirely without merit. The applicant had pleaded guilty, and the arguments concerning the smartphone, burner phone and related matters did not make the convictions arguably unsafe. The absence of a waiver of privilege, despite prompting by the Court of Appeal Office, was fatal to the ground alleging inadequate representation. Leave to appeal conviction was refused (paras [12]–[15]).
4. The sentence ground was also entirely without merit. The judge had substantially reduced the sentence for the notification breach and reduced the term for breach of the suspended sentence to reflect totality. The consecutive sentences were lawful and appropriate in the circumstances. It was unarguable that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and leave to appeal sentence was refused (paras [16]–[17]).
5. The renewed applications and the applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence were refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2026] EWCA Crim 923 , the court refused the renewed applications for extensions of time and refused leave to appeal conviction and sentence.
2. Crown Court at Snaresbrook — Following guilty pleas, the applicant was sentenced on 17 May 2023 to an overall term of 27 months’ imprisonment, including activation of part of a suspended sentence. No citation is stated in the judgment.