“PA”) had placed into one of your bank accounts. You were subsequently sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for 18 months. By your application, you apply for leave to appeal against your conviction, seeking an extension of time in order to do so, and also applying to rely on what is described as fresh evidence (which relates to the interactions between your trial counsel and an individual described as your “appointed advocate”). I have carefully read all the documentation you have supplied in support of your applications, together with the responses from your trial lawyers (and your annotations on those responses), the respondent’s notice and the trial documentation and transcripts available to me. Having done so, for the reasons set out below under each of your proposed grounds of appeal, I am satisfied that there is no arguable basis for thinking that the jury’s verdicts were unsafe. Ground 1: by this ground you say that the office in the case (“OIC”) DC Chan committed perjury by lying about emails received and sent to/from an email address that she denied using. You say that the OIC’s evidence in this regard - specifically her denial that she had received emails from you sent to the address in question - was relied on by the prosecution to discredit you in the eyes of the jury. I understand this ground of appeal to relate to an evidential dispute regarding an email you said you had sent to the OIC on11 December 2017 . You relied on this email as setting out your explanation regarding PA’s monies more accurately than your police interview in March 2018. The OIC was recalled on12 January 2024 to answer questions regarding this email, which she denied receiving. It was her evidence that she used a different email address to the one to which the disputed message had been sent and that had she received this email she would have exhibited it to a witness statement, as she had with other correspondence she had had with you. Other emails to/from the OIC in the jury bundle showed a different email address to the one used in the11 December 2017 email. You have, however, provided a copy of an email sent to your solicitor on24 July 2023 , which has four pdf documents attached: your email of11 December 2017 and three emails which seem to be from the OIC to you, all using the same email address. You have said that this is a matter you have referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct and is currently being investigated. At this stage, however, I am unable to see that simply showing pdf versions of emails going to a different email address than that claimed by the OIC would be sufficient to demonstrate that she had perjured herself. I am, moreover, unable to see that this would be a matter that could render the jury’s verdicts unsafe: you were able to put the email of11 December 2017 into evidence and to give your own account of what you had said, and why that was more reliable than the record of your answers in the March 2018 police interview. The jury heard your account and that of the OIC and, to the extent the jury considered it necessary to resolve this dispute, it was able to do so. Ground 2: you state that the complainant, PA, lied whilst giving evidence and that there was evidence available to show that he had done so. It is your case that PA lied about having chronic fatigue syndrome (“CFS”), and about his concerns about his claims to the DWP, and about the fact that he was living far beyond the means afforded to him by the benefits he claimed. You say that you provided your legal representatives with significant evidence demonstrating these points but they failed to utilise this and/or to properly make the points in question. Trial counsel has explained that the question whether PA had CFS was explored at a pre-trial hearing and PA’s diagnosis of CFS was established by the disclosure of a GP’s letter to this effect. As this is a condition in respect of which symptoms can fluctuate, the fact that PA was able to lead an active life at times when he was not experiencing symptoms meant that many of the points taken would inevitably go nowhere. It is, however, apparent that, pursuant to your instructions, your counsel did raise questions of PA in this regard at trial. Similarly, in relation to PA’s receipt of benefits and evidence regarding his lifestyle and expenditure, your counsel has explained that, although some evidence was put to PA in this regard, other material you had supplied did not make good the points you contended. As for questions of PA’s credibility in relation to his DWP claims, this is something you raised in your own evidence to the jury; in your counsel’s advice on appeal, it is explained that during your cross-examination, you accused PA of lying and fabricating evidence in other proceedings, which led the prosecution to make an application to admit evidence of your own previous convictions for offences of dishonesty. Although that application was refused by the judge, it was a legitimate concern for your legal team that the possibility of the admission of this evidence was kept in mind when making attacks on the character of PA. Ultimately, the jury had the opportunity to form its own view on your evidence, and on the evidence of PA, on the crucial questions at the heart of this case. I do not see that the points made under this ground are such as would arguably render your convictions unsafe. Ground 3: it is your contention that the prosecution withheld evidence, having taken evidence out of the main bundle relating to PA’s dealings with the DWP, without your, or your lawyers’, consent. You further say that your legal representatives were negligent to not present the evidence on discovering it had been taken out. It is unclear precisely which documents you are referring to in this regard. Addressing the substance of this allegation, however, I understand that prior disclosure had addressed the points made in the defence statements regarding the question whether the money in issue (some£26,000 that PA had inherited and which he subsequently placed into one of your accounts) would have affected PA’s access to benefits. The answer to that question was in the negative, which may well have rendered much of the material relating to this point irrelevant. In any event, there seems to be no dispute that PA was still cross-examined on this issue and that you gave evidence on the point. To the extent that the jury would have considered this relevant to PA’s credibility it was thus able to take these points into account. I cannot see that you have identified anything under this ground that would arguably suggest that your convictions were unsafe. Ground 4: you characterise this ground as relating to “Jury Tampering”