"1. I have been instructed of late in relation to this matter about both [applicants]. I am in a position to provide correspondence that ultimately was sent to the Legal Services Ombudsman to try and obtain papers from [the original firm of solicitors] who were obstructive in providing papers to my firm. Eventually this matter was resolved because a threat of proceedings in the County Court was made. 2. The proceedings go back to 2005. An extension of time will have to be sought and is sought on the basis that these two men were deported, have very limited command of English. It is only as a result of a friend of theirs, Mr Illiffe in this country that their case is being taken up. I would respectfully submit that if there is merit - and I do suggest there is merit - then they should be given leave to appeal conviction. 3. I attach Crown Prosecution Service papers. Both of them should have been given advice in relation to a defence under the Refugee Convention, both of them asserting asylum from their home country. Of late the court will be aware that the Court of Appeal has allowed leave to be given, possibly out of time, where negligent advice has been given or wrong advice by the previous lawyers. This is a case where wrong advice was in fact given to both defendants as they both had possible defences available to them under the Refugee Convention. 4. I refer firstly to the statement of the interview of [the first applicant] and it will be seen at 8.08, the question, what is said in these terms during the conversation, male [sic] to your friend told me, they fled from the Ivory Coast in West Africa as a result of the war. This must have triggered in the mind of any lawyer that there was a possible defence under the Refugee Convention. 5. Insofar as [the second applicant] is concerned, the same solicitors acted. I am not sure whether it is the same counsel. I am told that he raised the same issue with his lawyers, as to why he came to this country. 6. In the circumstances, albeit briefly, I explain that both of these men should, although they are out of the country, have permission to appeal. Both of them should have been advised that there was a possible defence, and I invite the court, albeit exceptionally, in the light of what I have said to extend the time by some eight years. 7. I am also further instructed that if this court does not grant leave, to refer this matter to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, because it seems to me that this firm should have advised that there was a defence available of duress effectively under the Refugee Convention, which is now of course being encapsulated in law. 8. I advise accordingly. GROUNDS OF APPEAL (i) Both appellants appeal on the basis that the advice given by [the original solicitors] to plead guilty was incorrect, negligent, and failed to advise that there was a possible defence under the Refugee Convention, and accordingly extension of time and leave to appeal is sought."