Mirza, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 25 August 2023, in the Crown Court at The City (Mr Recorder Richard Davis), the Appellant was convicted of stalking without violence contrary to section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He was acquitted of stalking with violence under section 4A of the same Act. The Appellant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a restraining order for ten years was imposed. The Appellant, representing himself, renewed an application for an extension of time of 171 days to seek leave to appeal against conviction and for a representation order following refusal by the Single Judge (Judge Hickinbottom).

The facts underlying the offence involve the Complainant, who reported being stalked at his home address on Taurus Close, The City. Between 14 and 18 October 2022, the Appellant allegedly contacted or attempted to contact the Complainant multiple times, which was claimed to amount to harassment and stalking. The prosecution relied on the Complainant’s testimony identifying the Appellant, who was known as the son of a local shop owner opposite the Complainant’s property. The Complainant described an incident on 14 October 2022, when the Appellant allegedly confronted him demanding money and making threats. Further threatening calls were made on 18 October 2022. Additional evidence included witness testimonies from the Complainant’s wife and others, police attendance records, and expert analysis of cellular phone data linking the Appellant to the calls and location. The Appellant denied the allegations, claiming in police interview that he had loaned his phone to a third party, Naeem Gul, during the relevant period.

The Appellant represented himself at trial after dispensing with his counsel and cross-examined prosecution witnesses with the assistance of a court-appointed advocate. The jury was tasked with determining whether the Appellant committed stalking as alleged, given the lack of positive identification in the parade and the conflicting evidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant’s application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction should be granted.
2. Whether there are arguable grounds to challenge the conviction for stalking under section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
3. The validity and weight of the evidence admitted at trial, including cellular phone data and witness testimony.
4. The fairness of the trial process, including the conduct of the judge and the role of court-appointed counsel.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Alleged improper admission of a malicious phone call to emergency services on 18 October 2022.
• Accusation that a police officer (PC Joshua Marshall) lied about attending the Complainant’s address on 14 October 2022.
• Claim that a statement by Naeem Gul was not properly questioned by the prosecution despite his involvement.
• Assertion that the Complainant passed the Appellant’s phone number to Naeem Gul for making death threats.
• Complaint that the judge did not accept the Appellant’s family home address as relevant evidence.
• Allegation that a prosecution witness (PC Stott) was improperly excluded.
• Suggestion that the Complainant and others lacked understanding of the UK context, affecting the credibility of the malicious call claim.
• Dispute over the guilty verdict on the alternative stalking charge.
• Criticism that court-appointed counsel left before the verdict without challenging the change in legal representation.
• Reference to PC Joshua Marshall’s alleged dyslexia communicated to a police chief.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court, adopting the reasoning of the Single Judge (Judge Hickinbottom), analysed each ground of appeal in turn. The court found the grounds largely incoherent, lacking merit, or merely disagreements with the jury’s factual findings. The judge’s directions and the trial process were deemed full and fair. Specific points included that the cellular phone evidence was properly admitted, the credibility of witnesses was a matter for the jury, and that the prosecution’s handling of evidence and witnesses was appropriate. The court noted that the Appellant had dispensed with his legal team early in the trial but was provided a court-appointed advocate for cross-examination of key witnesses. The absence of counsel at verdict was explained by the limited scope of the advocate’s appointment. The court did not accept any of the Appellant’s grounds as arguable or meritorious and therefore refused the application for extension of time and leave to appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal against the stalking conviction. The Appellant had already served the sentence imposed. The court ordered the Appellant to pay the reasonable cost of the transcript amounting to £151.25 within 28 days under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. No new precedent was established, and the decision primarily upheld the finality of the conviction and sentence in this matter.