Mirza v R: Upholding Stringent Merit and Timeliness Standards for Criminal Appeal Extensions and Cost Sanctions

1. Introduction

In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision Mirza, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 483, handed down on 27 March 2025 by Mr Justice Bryan, the court considered the applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal his 2020 conviction under section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and for leave to introduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

The applicant, Mr Asfan Mirza, had been convicted at Leicester Crown Court of threatening Mr Imran Ghanchi with a machete. He was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment plus a 4½-year restraining order. Represented at trial by M & M Solicitors and Mr Philip Gibbs KC, the applicant now represented himself in the appeal, seeking to overturn his conviction on various grounds and to call a new witness.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for an extension of time and refused leave to appeal. Adopting the comprehensive reasoning of the single judge (Sir Gary Hickinbottom), the court found:

All seven grounds of appeal were “wholly without merit” or incoherent.
There was no arguable point on conviction, identity being the sole contested issue and the evidence against the applicant overwhelming.
No fresh evidence from Iqbal Mirza was properly described or relevant.
The applicant’s delay of 1,284 days in seeking leave was substantial, but refusal turned on lack of merit regardless of delay.
Under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, costs of £111.32 for transcript were ordered against the applicant to discourage unmeritorious applications, applying the principle in R v Gray & Ors [2014] EWCA Crim 2372.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

The leading authority invoked was R v Gray & Ors [2014] EWCA Crim 2372, in which the Court of Appeal emphasized its power to impose costs and refuse clearly unmeritorious extensions to deter wasteful litigation. The court applied the same rationale here: Parliament’s grants of power under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 must be used to protect judicial resources and uphold procedural discipline.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in two stages:

Merits Assessment: The applicant’s self-drafted grounds were examined against the trial record. None raised any arguable error of law or fact:
- Alibi or alternative incident grounds were unsupported by any evidence or application below.
- No record existed of emergency phone calls, transcript changes, or contemptable conduct by trial participants.
- No procedural irregularity arose from the indictment or jury directions.
- The restraining order was a proper ancillary order following a conviction for a violent threat against a neighbour.
Timeliness and Extension of Time: Although the applicant sought an extension nearly 3½ years late, the court held that where the substance of grounds is wholly without merit, there is no need to explore or excuse delay. The court may simply refuse an extension when an appeal has no real prospect of success.

3.3. Impact

This decision reinforces several important principles in criminal appellate practice:

Strict Merit Threshold: Appellants must identify clear arguable errors; speculative or incoherent grounds will be rejected summarily.
Timeliness Enforcement: Extensions of time are not automatic; they depend on both delay justification and substantive merit.
Cost Sanctions: The court will deploy its statutory power under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to order appellants to bear transcript costs as a deterrent to frivolous applications.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 139AA, Criminal Justice Act 1988: Creates the offence of threatening someone in a public place with a bladed article. The prosecution must prove the defendant intended to cause fear.
Extension of Time (Criminal Appeal Act 1968): Permission is required to bring an appeal outside the 28-day window from sentencing. The court weighs both delay and merits before granting an extension.
Leave to Appeal: Even within time, an appellant must obtain “leave” by showing arguable grounds or a real prospect of success.
Section 18(6), Prosecution of Offences Act 1985: Empowers the court to order the unsuccessful appellant to pay the costs of transcripts if it is just and reasonable, particularly to discourage unmeritorious appeals.

5. Conclusion

Key Takeaways: Mirza v R confirms the Court of Appeal’s robust approach to filtering out unmeritorious and belated appeals, preserving judicial time and resources. By refusing both the extension of time and leave to appeal, and by awarding transcript costs against the applicant, the court underscored the necessity for appellants to both comply with procedural timelines and advance coherent, evidence-based grounds. This judgment will serve as a clear precedent warning against speculative appeals and reinforcing the deterrent effect of cost sanctions under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.