Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
None of the proposed grounds of appeal are arguable; the applicant's criticisms are unparticularised, and the trial process was fair with proper directions given. There was no evidence to support diminished responsibility or procedural unfairness. The extension of time is granted, but leave to appeal is refused.
Source excerpt
None of the grounds of appeal disclosed an arguable ground for challenging the conviction or justified an extension of time; the trial was fair and the jury's verdict was safe.
Source excerpt
There was no arguable error in the trial judge's decision regarding the juror, no proper basis for admitting fresh evidence from the applicant's mother, no merit in criticisms of legal representation, no improper concessions in the prosecution closing speech, no material impact from alleged misleading regarding screenshots, and no evidence supporting incomplete disclosure. The grounds for appeal are unarguable and the application must be refused.
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecutions v DNL [2025] EWHC 3099 (Admin) (25 November 2025)
The High Court allowed the DPP’s appeal by way of case stated, holding that there was sufficient evidence of anal penetration to answer a rape charge.
FO, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1616 (21 November 2025)
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and refused an extension of time, finding no arguable ground that the conviction was unsafe.
Patel v Parker & Ors [2025] EWHC 2931 (Ch) (07 November 2025)
During trial, the High Court refused the first defendant’s late and overbroad disclosure application, finding it unnecessary, disproportionate, and disruptive.
The application for disclosure was refused because it was made too late, sought more than necessary, and was oppressive, with relevant information already disclosed or offered in a limited form.
Source excerpt
The applicant's nine grounds of appeal, including requests for extension of time and admission of fresh evidence, do not give rise to any arguable grounds for appeal. The evidence sought to be introduced is not fresh, could have been adduced at trial, and does not undermine the safety of the convictions. There is no good reason for the delay or for varying the grounds. The trial judge's directions were proper. The application for extension of time is refused and the renewed application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal refused renewed leave to appeal against convictions for sexual assault of a child under 13, finding no arguable basis that the convictions were unsafe.
There is no realistic prospect of success for an appeal against conviction as the grounds raised do not arguably cast doubt on the safety of the convictions, the jury was properly directed, and the applicant's criticisms are without merit. The delay in filing the appeal is unjustified.
Source excerpt
Explore more
