Woroniecki, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 364 (12 March 2025)

Woroniecki, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 364 (12 March 2025)

The application for extension of time was refused as no good reason for the 232-day delay was established. The alleged new evidence was not new or material, as the issues of money and alcohol use were already before the jury. Other grounds raised were either matters for the jury or unsupported by the evidence. There was no arguable case that the conviction was unsafe.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 364
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Marek Woronicki
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
renewed application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Controlling or Coercive Behaviour, Intentional Suffocation, Assault, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Fresh Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Controlling or Coercive Behaviour Intentional Suffocation Assault Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Fresh Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Marek Woronicki

Applicant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is good reason to extend time for appeal by 232 days
  2. 2 Whether new evidence renders the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether other grounds raised by the applicant are arguable

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused as no good reason for the 232-day delay was established. The alleged new evidence was not new or material, as the issues of money and alcohol use were already before the jury. Other grounds raised were either matters for the jury or unsupported by the evidence. There was no arguable case that the conviction was unsafe.

Court Disposition

renewed application for leave to appeal refused