THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: This applicant was on 8th March of last year in the Crown Court at Ipswich convicted, following a retrial lasting four days, of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent attempt at evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug (Count 1) and secondly, being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion on the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug (Count 2).         There are two applications before this court. The first application relates to a notice of abandonment of his application for leave to appeal, which he now desires to withdraw and wishes this court to treat as a nullity. The circumstances surrounding that application are these. On 26th June last year the single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction. Notification was attempted to be sent to the applicant in prison on 2nd July. No renewal was received from him during the 14-day period which he is allowed, and consequently the case lapsed on 25th July. In fact things were not quite as simple as they seemed.         In the meantime, before going on with the detail of the matter, a notice of abandonment dated 31st July was received by the Criminal Appeal office and apparently signed by the applicant. Consequently no further action was taken. In September of last year a purported renewal was received. However, what now appears to have happened is this. The applicant only received the notification of the single judge's refusal on 20th August 1990. The reason for that delay was one which is not altogether unusual. He had been moved from Norwich prison to Wayland Prison. Consequently the office not knowing of that move had sent the document to the wrong prison. The applicant had thereupon signed the renewal form, but there the next difficulty took place. That was that he had misaddressed the form. He had addressed it to C.O.A.C.D, 'Y' Group, The Strand, London. We have the envelope here. That was never received. Why he in fact served a formal notice of abandonment one does not know. The fact of the matter is that his English is not good and it may very well be that mistakes due to no fault of his have caused this notice of abandonment of his appeal to be served upon the office.         In those circumstances, without endeavouring to investigate any further the whys and wherefores of these various misfortunes, we consider that this is a case where we should, perhaps exceptionally, treat this notice of abandonment as a nullity and turn now to consider the application for leave to appeal against conviction.         The facts of the case very briefly are these. On 15th November 1989 Customs Officers, who in fact were posing as drug dealers, boarded a vessel which was moored in Felixstowe Docks. On that vessel the applicant was a seaman. Information had been received by the customs officers, and that was the reason for their posing as drug dealers because they were intent on trying to discover whether this applicant was going to import two kilogrammes of powder, which was alleged to be diamorphine (heroin). They got into contact with this man on board the vessel. To cut a long story short, they asked him if he had anything. He said that he had two kilos hidden on deck, but he asked to see the money first. One of the officers said the money was in the car and he wanted to see the drugs first. Again, to move on in the story -- there is no need to go into precise detail about it -- in due course this man produced four packages from inside the legs of his overall. He cut the corner of one packet. The customs officers could see that it contained brown powder. The applicant said that it was very good stuff. He was pleased to see them, and he asked them for the money.         The powder, according to the officers, smelt like heroin, and indeed they thought it was heroin. That was the situation. However, when it was analysed by the chemist, it was found that it was not heroin which was contained in the packages but phenobarbitone and methaqualone, both of those substances apparently being regularly used to adulterate or "cut" heroin sent from the Indian subcontinent to Europe.         The principal question so far as Count 1 was concerned, that is the fraudulent attempt to smuggle in the heroin, was whether the applicant was proved to have believed that the substance in these packages was heroin. The principal ground of appeal is that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to consider on that aspect of the case. We have read the evidence of the case; we have read the statements made by this man to the investigators; and we have read the learned judge's summing-up. Without wishing to raise the applicant's hopes unduly of success in this matter, we feel that there is an arguable point which should be heard by the full court as to whether there was sufficient evidence on this important point to go before the jury. Consequently, what we propose to do is to give leave to appeal against conviction with legal aid for counsel only. The prosecution are to be present. To that extent this application succeeds. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -