McGrath, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1103 (25 July 2025)

McGrath, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1103 (25 July 2025)

The application for extension of time and to admit fresh evidence was refused because the grounds were not fresh, lacked merit, and no reasonable explanation was provided for the delay. The proposed evidence could have been adduced at trial and did not arguably affect the safety of the convictions. The trial judge's rulings were correct, and the convictions were safe based on the evidence presented.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1103
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Anthony Finbar McGrath
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction and Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time and renewed leave to appeal refused; convictions stand.
Legal Topics
Fraud, Perverting the Course of Justice, Fresh Evidence, Extension of Time, Joinder of Counts, Bad Character Evidence, Disclosure, Mental Health in Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Fraud Perverting the Course of Justice Fresh Evidence Extension of Time Joinder of Counts Bad Character Evidence Disclosure +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Anthony Finbar McGrath

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal nearly 6 years out of time
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit bad character evidence of a prosecution witness

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time and to admit fresh evidence was refused because the grounds were not fresh, lacked merit, and no reasonable explanation was provided for the delay. The proposed evidence could have been adduced at trial and did not arguably affect the safety of the convictions. The trial judge's rulings were correct, and the convictions were safe based on the evidence presented.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and renewed leave to appeal refused; convictions stand.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused on all grounds
  • Application for extension of time refused