R v Zafar Iqbal

R v Zafar Iqbal

There was no reasonable explanation for the delay of over 6 years in bringing the applications. The fresh evidence (text messages) was not credible, did not show the complainant lied at trial, and would not have affected the outcome. The convictions are safe and no extension of time or permission to appeal is warranted.

Parties
Applicant: Zafar Iqbal; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, and to Rely on Fresh Evidence
Outcome
applications refused; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Fresh Evidence, Appeal Out of Time, Witness Credibility, Delay in Appeal
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Fresh Evidence Appeal Out of Time Witness Credibility Delay in Appeal

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zafar Iqbal

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, and to Rely on Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable explanation for the delay in making the applications for appeal and to rely on fresh evidence
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence (text messages from the complainant recanting her trial evidence) is credible and capable of belief
  3. 3 Whether the new evidence affords a ground for allowing the appeal and renders the convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

There was no reasonable explanation for the delay of over 6 years in bringing the applications. The fresh evidence (text messages) was not credible, did not show the complainant lied at trial, and would not have affected the outcome. The convictions are safe and no extension of time or permission to appeal is warranted.

Court Disposition

applications refused; convictions upheld

Orders

  • All applications for extension of time, permission to appeal, and to rely on fresh evidence are refused.
  • The applicant's convictions are upheld.