As a matter of principle, the time limits provided by section 18(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 are substantively important. They are not simply an administrative convenience. Amongst other things, those time limits mean that, if an appeal is successful, any retrial can take place relatively shortly after the first trial. It reduces the risk that witnesses’ memories will have faded even more by the time of the second trial. If there has already been a delay in the service of a notice of appeal, a prospective appellant needs to minimise any additional delay. If he or she has sufficient information to file a notice of appeal, albeit out of time, then that needs to be done without further delay. It is not appropriate, in a case that is already out of time, to delay yet further, and to seek more and more information, in an attempt to produce the perfect appeal notice, even where an advocate may be reluctant to launch an appeal that criticises the lawyers previously instructed without knowing the full facts. It is a matter of judgment, but there comes a time when speed is more important than the last detail (paras 38, 39).

Where the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) forms a preliminary view, having regard to the period of delay and the reasons advanced for that delay, that the necessary extension of time should not be granted, it is nevertheless always necessary for the court to look at the merits of the proposed appeal in any event. If the detailed material provided demonstrates to the court’s satisfaction that the applicant would otherwise suffer a significant injustice, it will reconsider its preliminary view not to grant the extension of time (para 40).