Ismailaj, R v

Ismailaj, R v

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking to adduce fresh evidence or for not obtaining it at trial. The proposed evidence was peripheral, would not have affected the jury's assessment of the complainant's credibility on the central issues, and did not render the convictions unsafe. The applications for extension of time, leave to appeal, and to adduce fresh evidence were refused.

Parties
Applicant: Estref Ismailaj; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Assault, Child Sexual Offences, Fresh Evidence, Extension of Time, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Assault Child Sexual Offences Fresh Evidence Extension of Time Credibility of Witnesses

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estref Ismailaj

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal against conviction
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence regarding passport stamps should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether the convictions are unsafe in light of the proposed fresh evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking to adduce fresh evidence or for not obtaining it at trial. The proposed evidence was peripheral, would not have affected the jury's assessment of the complainant's credibility on the central issues, and did not render the convictions unsafe. The applications for extension of time, leave to appeal, and to adduce fresh evidence were refused.

Court Disposition

applications refused