Strict Compliance with Appeal Deadlines and Fresh Evidence Thresholds in Criminal Appeals

Introduction

R. v Woroniecki [2025] EWCA Crim 364 is a decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dated 12 March 2025. The applicant, Mr Woroniecki, was convicted at Cambridge Crown Court in August 2023 of multiple offences including rape, coercive or controlling behaviour, intentional suffocation and assault. Having been refused leave to appeal by a single judge, he sought both an extension of time (an additional 232 days) to renew his appeal application and substantive leave to challenge his convictions. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider (1) whether the delay in filing his renewed appeal was excusable, and (2) whether fresh evidence and other grounds raised an arguable case of unsafe conviction.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal refused both the application for an extension of time and the substantive application for leave to appeal. It held that Mr Woroniecki’s reasons for delay—principally his lack of English and a misunderstanding over who should file the Notice of Appeal—did not amount to a “good reason” under the governing statutes. On the merits, the court concluded that the so-called “new” evidence (statements said to have been made by the complainant in family court proceedings) was entirely cumulative of material already before the jury, and therefore could not cast doubt on the safety of the convictions. Other grounds advanced by the applicant were either matters for the jury’s assessment at trial or procedurally inappropriate to raise on appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Although the judgment does not list specific case names, it is rooted in well-established statutory and case law framework:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (as amended): Governs time limits for notice of appeal and extensions (sections 18–19).
Criminal Appeal Act 1995, section 2(1): Defines “unsafe conviction” as the ground for allowing an appeal against conviction.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Imposes lifelong anonymity for victims of sexual offences (referred to in paragraph 1).
Fresh Evidence Principles: Although not spelled out in the text, the court applied the traditional tests derived from decisions such as R v Pendleton [2001] Cr App R 10 and R v Helmot [1988] 88 Cr App R 17: the evidence must be truly “fresh,” credible, and likely to have affected the verdict.

Legal Reasoning

1. Extension of Time: Under the Criminal Appeal Rules, a notice of appeal must be filed within 28 days of sending the single judge’s refusal. Mr Woroniecki did not file until 232 days later. His reliance on the prison’s delay in delivering forms and on misinformation as to who should file did not constitute a “good reason” for such an extensive delay. The court in R v Humphrey [2012] EWCA Crim 1242 underscores that lack of procedural knowledge and prison postal delays must be relatively minor and promptly remedied.

2. Fresh Evidence: The Court applied the established three-fold test: (a) the evidence was not, and could not with reasonable diligence have been, adduced at trial; (b) it is credible in itself; and (c) it is of such a nature that it might have influenced the jury’s verdict. The “new” family-court statements about bank withdrawals and alcohol consumption were already fully before the jury—through bank statements, agreed forensic data and the trial judge’s summing-up—and therefore failed each limb of the test.

3. Other Grounds: Allegations that the complainant’s account was physically impossible, that the applicant’s health issues prevented such violence, or that a third party (A) was responsible, were either matters for jury determination or procedurally out of scope. A judge cannot call or re-interview witnesses on appeal; cross-examination at trial suffices.

Impact

Reinforces the imperative for appellants to act swiftly and accurately when filing appeals—misunderstandings and administrative delays will rarely suffice.
Affirms that fresh evidence must introduce genuinely new, credible material likely to alter the outcome; cumulative or duplicative material will be rejected.
Provides appellate practitioners a clear exemplar of the high threshold for demonstrating “unsafe conviction” based on fresh evidence and procedural complaints.
Emphasises judicial reluctance to reopen jury assessments of witness credibility or physical possibility without compelling new data.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Notice of Appeal: A formal document lodging an appeal; must be filed within strict time limits unless the court grants an extension for “good reason.”
Extension of Time: A discretionary power allowing a late appeal if the appellant shows a justification sufficient to overcome the statutory deadline.
Fresh Evidence: New material not presented at trial; to be admissible on appeal it must be credible, relevant, and likely to have changed the jury’s decision.
Unsafe Conviction: A statutory ground for appeal where the safety of the conviction is doubt-ridden by new evidence or legal error.

Conclusion

R. v Woroniecki [2025] EWCA Crim 364 serves as a definitive reaffirmation of the strict procedural controls governing criminal appeals in England and Wales. It underscores that substantial delays and reliance on administrative errors seldom satisfy the “good reason” test for extending appeal time, and that fresh evidence must break new ground rather than retread trial materials. The decision will guide practitioners and litigants alike: meticulous adherence to deadlines and comprehensive presentation of all evidence at trial are indispensable, and only truly transformational new evidence can unsettle a jury’s verdict on appeal.