R v Joshua Ogbeni [2026] EWCA Crim 803

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Between

R EXCrown

London

WC2A 2LL

ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BLACKFRIARS

(HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARKE KC) [T20197109]

Case No 2023/04073/B4 Tuesday 9 June 2026

Neutral Citation No [2026] EWCA Crim 803

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE FRASER

MRS JUSTICE CUTTS DBE

HIS HONOUR JUDGE FIELD KC

(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

____________________

- v –

Between

JOSHUA OGBENI

____________________

Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

___________________

Non Counsel Application

___________________

J U D G M E N T

Date 2026-06-09

[1]The applicant renews his applications for an extension of time of 1,542 days (approximately four years) and for leave to appeal against conviction, following refusal by the single judge.

[2]On 4 November 2019, following a trial in the Crown Court at Blackfriars, he was convicted of two offences of possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply and one offence of possession of criminal property. He was sentenced to a total of 11 years' imprisonment.

[3]As for the need for an extension of time, the applicant says that he tried to appeal in 2019, but found it difficult to keep up with that when he was transferred to a different prison. He was in a category B prison for three and a half years, and it was not until he moved to a category C prison that he saw an advertisement explaining the appeal process, whereupon he drafted his grounds. He further states that he was advised by his counsel in 2021 that he had no grounds to appeal. We do not accept that this properly explains such a lengthy delay, but have nonetheless considered the application on its merits.

[4]The grounds of appeal relate to evidence called in rebuttal at the applicant's trial. Part of the evidence against him was the discovery by the police on search of his premises of £13,000 in cash, which the prosecution asserted was the proceeds of drug trafficking. Whilst giving evidence, the applicant produced a bank statement from the Nationwide Building Society which purported to support his assertion that this came in part from employment income.

[5]Having made enquiries into the Nationwide account, the prosecution were permitted by the judge to adduce evidence and call witnesses to rebut the applicant's assertions as to the authenticity of the statement. The applicant then indicated that he did not wish to continue to give evidence, and relied upon the account that he had already given, namely that the statement was genuine.

[6]The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction on the ground that it was unfair to allow new evidence to be introduced by the prosecution whilst he was giving evidence. The applicant says that he had no knowledge of the new evidence beforehand and therefore it should not have been allowed. He asserts that it was unfair to allow more witnesses to be called.

[7]In the Respondent's Notice the prosecution point out that following service of this new evidence, the applicant was given time to receive advice from counsel in relation to it, and it appears that he was reluctant to continue to give evidence and to face cross-examination once the forgery was discovered. In those circumstances the judge did not err in allowing further witnesses to be called. He gave a fair and balanced overview of the evidence in his summing up, and took care in relation to how the applicant put forward his financial position.

[8]In refusing the applicant leave to appeal against conviction, the single

judge said:

"Your proposed appeal has no prospect of success. In relation to the £8,000 and the related documents, you were given time to consider and take advice from your legal team. You had the opportunity to give further evidence. The jury considered all the evidence regardless of the order in which it was introduced, and with the assistance of the judge's summing up which included his reminding them of your evidence. There was no unfairness."

[9]We have considered the matter afresh and find ourselves in complete agreement with the single judge for the reason he gave. The conviction in this case is not arguably unsafe.

[10]Accordingly, the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

[11]We do not grant the application for an extension of time, as to do so would serve no useful purpose. ___________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________