The Grounds of Appeal
23.In applying for permission to appeal, Mr Summers KC and Ms Darby, neither of whom represented the Applicant below, have left no possible stone unturned and have said all that could possibly be said on the Applicant’s behalf. When reduced to its bare essentials, there are three main points. The first is that the Judge wrongly admitted the evidence that Mr Mitchell had been arrested and charged with drug offences and that this caused the entire trial to go out of control or, in their words, become distorted. The second is that the legal team of solicitors and counsel failed to call evidence that they should have called, which, it is submitted, might have had an important impact on the outcome of the trial. Ancillary to this ground is an application under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to adduce the evidence of 10 additional witnesses who were not called at trial. Third, it is submitted that an extension of time of something over 8 years and 2 months should be given to the Applicant within which to bring this application and proposed appeal.24.We take as our starting point the criteria that have to be satisfied in order for an extension of time to be granted. We adopt as a convenient summary what was said by a different constitution of this court in R v O [2019] EWCA Crim 1389 at [45]:“This therefore brings us to the question of delay and the lengthy extension of time required. The delay in this case has been considerable. The extension of time is very long as we have observed. The principles to be applied in an extension of time case are well known. In R v Hughes [2009] EWCA Crim 841 at [20] it was said that an extension would “be granted only where there is good reason to give it, and ordinarily where the defendant will otherwise suffer significant injustice”. In R v Thorsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1 it was stated “the principled approach to extensions of time is that the court will grant an extension if it is in the interests of justice to do so”. It was also said in that case that “the public interest embraces also, and in our view critically, the justice of the case and the liberty of the individual…” and “the court will examine the merits of the underlying grounds before the decision is made whether to grant an extension of time.” It was also noted that the passage of time may put the court in difficulty in resolving whether an error has occurred and if so to what extent.”25.The last sentence from that citation reflects what has been said in many cases where long extensions of time are requested and, in particular, the ever-present risk that matters will look rather different and, with the best will in the world, may present a changed complexion if presented at a time when those concerned with the original trial are no longer able to remember with accuracy what happened, why they happened, or the dynamics and the nuances of the trial process. See, for example Gabbana [2020] EWCA Crim 1473 at [110], citing Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631 at [98].26.We shall deal first with the application to call further evidence. Given the nature of the application, we shall not provide extensive details of the evidence; but we have read it all and keep all of it in mind when considering the opposing submissions.