R v Abdul Rostami

A substantial and wholly unexplained delay in seeking permission to appeal sentence is sufficient reason to refuse an extension of time. A leading role in a serious, planned robbery, together with relevant previous convictions and risk of serious harm, can justify a materially longer sentence than those imposed on co-defendants with lesser roles. A guilty plea entered on the day of trial attracts no more than the applicable 10 per cent credit. A sentencing judge may regard an offender as dangerous and impose an extended sentence, but may properly decline to do so after considering age, health and time in custody.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle Upon Tyne to kidnapping and robbery arising from a planned attack in which the victim was restrained, assaulted and forced to reveal the location of money. On 18 July 2022, he was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. The judge treated the offences together as a professionally planned commercial robbery aggravated by kidnapping, assessed the applicant as having a leading role, and allowed 10 per cent credit for his guilty plea on the day of trial.

A single judge refused leave to appeal and refused an extension of time. The applicant renewed both applications after a delay of 257 days. The central issues were whether the delay should be extended and whether the sentence was arguably wrong because of the applicant’s role, guilty-plea credit, disparity with co-defendants, and the judge’s decision not to impose an extended sentence.

1. Extension of time. The renewed application for an extension of time was refused. A delay of 257 days, for which the applicant gave no explanation, provided a sufficient basis for the single judge’s decision and for the Court’s refusal of the renewed application.
2. Role and culpability. The sentencing judge was entitled to reject the applicant’s attempt to minimise his role and, on the material before her, to find that he was a prime mover who had played a leading role. That categorisation was correct and disclosed no arguable sentencing error.
3. Guilty plea. The applicant pleaded guilty only on the day fixed for trial. He was therefore not entitled to more than 10 per cent credit. The judge had expressly allowed that credit by reducing an 11-year starting point to 10 years.
4. Comparison with co-defendants. The lesser sentences imposed on the co-defendants were justified by their less significant roles and lower culpability. The applicant’s previous convictions, including convictions for violence, and the pre-sentence report’s assessment that he presented a significant risk of serious harm supplied further aggravating features that did not apply equally to the others.
5. Dangerous offender assessment. The judge would have been entitled to regard the applicant as dangerous and to impose an extended sentence. Her decision not to do so, having regard to his age, health and time in custody, was a merciful exercise of sentencing judgment rather than an error. The applicant had been fortunate that a longer sentence was not imposed.
6. Both the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and the renewed application for an extension of time were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence and for an extension of time were refused.
• Single judge — Refused leave to appeal and refused an extension of time.
• Crown Court at Newcastle Upon Tyne — On 18 July 2022, sentenced the applicant to 10 years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to kidnapping and robbery.