Rostamkhany, R v

Where an applicant for leave to appeal sentence raises a potentially important sentencing issue that cannot properly be examined at an initial hearing without Crown assistance, the court may grant the necessary extension of time and leave to appeal, then direct a fuller hearing before an appropriate constitution of the court.

The applicant had arrived at Gatwick using a false passport and was to be treated as a refugee. He sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and leave to appeal against sentence.

The court considered that the appropriate sentence in such circumstances was a troubling issue. Counsel for the applicant persuaded the court that it required fuller consideration than could be given at the hearing, particularly because the Crown was not represented.

1. The court granted the extension of time and granted leave to appeal: “We grant the necessary extension of time and we grant leave to appeal.” [1]
2. The case raised the question of the appropriate sentence for a person treated as a refugee who had arrived at Gatwick with a false passport. [2]
3. The court did not determine that sentencing question. It accepted that the issue required fuller examination, which could not properly occur at that hearing in the Crown’s absence. [3]
4. The appeal was directed to be heard by the Vice-President of the Criminal Division or the President of the Queen’s Bench Division. The Crown was to be represented to assist the court on cases of this kind. [4]
5. A representation order was granted if the applicant did not already have one. [7]

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, but deferred determination of the sentencing issue pending a fuller hearing with Crown representation.
• The judgment appealed and its citation are not stated in the judgment.