Iqbal, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns an individual ("the Applicant") convicted in June 2015 at the Crown Court in Leeds for multiple sexual offences against his stepdaughter ("AF"). The offences included sexual activity with a child and attempted rape. The Applicant was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment and has since served the custodial part of his sentence and been released on licence.

The Applicant sought leave to appeal his sentence, which was refused both by a single judge and the Full Court. In November 2022, he applied for permission to appeal his conviction, supported by fresh evidence consisting primarily of three text messages sent by AF in June 2016, over a year after the conviction, in which she stated she had lied about the Applicant. These applications required an extension of time exceeding seven years and permission to amend grounds of appeal. The applications were referred to the Full Court and directions were given regarding the fresh evidence.

At trial, AF, who had a history of sexual abuse by multiple men including co-accused, initially denied involvement of the Applicant but later disclosed abuse by him. The prosecution case was that the Applicant groomed AF and sexually abused her on three occasions between May and June 2012. The Applicant denied the allegations. The trial judge provided comprehensive directions, and the Applicant was convicted on all counts.

Following conviction, text messages from AF to her mother ("SA") emerged, in which AF recanted parts of her trial testimony. AF was interviewed by police regarding these messages but maintained that her trial evidence was truthful. Subsequent statements and oral evidence from AF, SA, and other witnesses were considered during the renewed appeal applications.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there is a reasonable explanation for the substantial delay in making the application for permission to appeal and to rely on fresh evidence.
2. Whether the new evidence (the text messages and related statements) is capable of belief.
3. Whether the new evidence affords any ground for allowing the appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The delay in making the application, although lengthy, is explicable and should not preclude consideration of the merits.
• The merits of the application should be the primary factor in granting an extension of time.
• The timing, unsolicited nature, and wording of the text messages, along with AF's knowledge of perjury charges at the time of police interview, support the truth of the texts and indicate AF lied at trial.

Crown's Arguments

• The delay in making the application is unjustified and has caused prejudice, as demonstrated by AF's limited recollection during oral evidence.
• AF's repeated denials of lying at trial were credible and addressed directly by the trial judge.
• The new evidence does not undermine the safety of the convictions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the lengthy delay of over six years in applying for permission to appeal and relying on fresh evidence. It found no reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that the Applicant was aware of the text messages by June 2016 but did not make any application until late 2022. The Court rejected submissions that financial difficulties justified the delay, emphasizing the absence of supporting evidence and the Applicant's prior legal representation.

Regarding the new evidence, the Court concluded that the text messages were genuine but sent out of emotional conflict and pressure, particularly from AF's mother, rather than reflecting truth. AF's own police interview and subsequent statement confirmed that her trial testimony was truthful and that the text messages were attempts to secure the Applicant's release from prison. The Court also noted corroborating evidence unrelated to AF's testimony, such as the Applicant's wife witnessing an incident consistent with the charges.

The Court held that even if the new evidence had been before the jury, it would not have altered the verdict, as the jury was already aware of AF's reluctance and inconsistencies. The safety of the convictions was therefore not undermined.

Holding and Implications

The Court refused all applications. There was no basis to grant an extension of time, permission to appeal, or to admit the fresh evidence. The Applicant's convictions were declared entirely safe.

The direct consequence is that the Applicant's convictions and sentence remain undisturbed. The Court did not establish any new precedent but reaffirmed established principles concerning delay, fresh evidence, and the safety of convictions in criminal appeals.