Mirza v R [2025] EWCA Crim 482: Reinforcing the Principle of Discouraging Unmeritorious Criminal Appeals

Introduction

In Mirza, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 482), the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered an application by an unrepresented appellant, Asfan Mirza, to extend time for seeking leave to appeal against a stalking conviction under section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The appellant had been convicted in the Crown Court at Leicester of stalking without fear of violence and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, with a ten-year restraining order. Having served his sentence, Mirza applied for a 171-day extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction and to secure legal representation. The Single Judge (Hickinbottom J) and the full Court dismissed his application as wholly without merit. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed established principles for refusing unmeritorious appeals and invoked statutory powers under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to deter vexatious litigation.

Summary of the Judgment

The appeal court dismissed both the request for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal. Key elements of the decision include:

Confirmation that no arguable grounds existed to challenge the safety of Mirza’s conviction.
Adoption of the Single Judge’s detailed analysis of the ten grounds of appeal drafted by the appellant, each characterised as incoherent complaints or disagreements with jury findings.
Reaffirmation that the stalking conviction simpliciter—an alternative verdict under section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997—was appropriate and lawful.
Reliance on R v Gray & Ors [2014] EWCA Crim 2372 to emphasise the Court’s duty to discourage unmeritorious applications through statutory sanction.
An order under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 requiring Mirza to pay £151.25 for transcript costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court primarily drew upon two authorities:

R v Gray & Ors [2014] EWCA Crim 2372 – Established that the Criminal Appeal Court must use its statutory powers to discourage unmeritorious or frivolous appeals which consume judicial time and resources.
Statutory framework under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (criteria for leave to appeal, including safety of conviction standard) and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (section 18(6) cost-ordering power).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be distilled into three pillars:

Merits Threshold
Leave to appeal requires an arguable issue that a conviction is unsafe. Here, each of Mirza’s ten grounds was evaluated and rejected:
- Some grounds attacked credibility of prosecution witnesses—matters for the jury.
- Others alleged procedural irregularities that were not shown to exist.
- Several grounds were unintelligible or non-specific, lacking any legal basis.
Extension of Time
Even if time limits were exceeded, extension applications must demonstrate both a good reason for delay and a real prospect of success. The Court declined to consider the delay once the absence of substantive merit was established.
Sanctioning Unmeritorious Appeals
Citing Gray, the Court stressed its duty to deter resource-wasting applications. Section 18(6) Prosecution of Offences Act powers were used to shift transcript costs onto the unsuccessful applicant.

Impact

This decision reaffirms the strict approach taken by appellate courts to:

Deter self-represented appellants from flooding the Court with unfounded or incoherent grounds.
Reinforce the high threshold for showing a conviction is unsafe.
Encourage early legal advice to avoid procedural mistakes and wasted court time.
Illustrate the utility of cost orders under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 as a deterrent.

Future appellants will face close scrutiny of both the coherence of their grounds and the underlying merits before any extension of time or leave to appeal is granted.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Extension of Time: A request to delay the deadline for filing an appeal. Must show a good reason for delay and a real prospect of success.
Leave to Appeal: Preliminary permission from the Court to proceed with an appeal. Granted only if there is an arguable ground that a conviction is unsafe.
Alternative Verdict: Under section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the jury may convict on a lesser offence (stalking without fear of violence) if the higher offence (stalking with fear of violence) is not made out.
Section 18(6) Prosecution of Offences Act 1985: Empowers the Court to order unsuccessful appellants to pay the costs of transcripts, serving as a financial deterrent to unmeritorious appeals.

Conclusion

Mirza v R underscores the appellate courts’ rigorous gate-keeping role in criminal appeals. By dismissing the late and wholly unmeritorious application, the Court reaffirmed that:

Self-represented appellants must articulate coherent, legally arguable grounds.
The threshold for demonstrating an unsafe conviction remains high.
Statutory powers exist to deter and penalise vexatious or frivolous applications.

The case serves as a clear warning: procedural irregularities or general dissatisfaction with jury findings are unlikely to succeed absent fresh evidence or legal error. It consolidates the principle—echoed in Gray—that the efficient administration of justice requires firm measures against unmeritorious appeals.