R v Hersh Osman

A renewed application for leave to appeal sentence should be refused where the sentencing judge assessed the individual facts by reference to the applicable guideline, imposed a sentence capable of managing the offender’s risk and protecting the public, and made no arguable error. A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because the offender asserts that it is longer than it should have been.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Leeds of attempting to commit arson with intent to endanger life. He had taken petrol and a lighter to a shop, poured petrol around it and unsuccessfully attempted to ignite it. The shop was below a factory occupied by workers.

On 6 June 2023, HHJ Bayliss KC imposed an extended determinate sentence of 16 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period. The applicant renewed, following the single judge’s refusal, applications for an extension of time, leave to appeal against sentence and a representation order.

1. The renewed applications were refused. The court held that the proposed appeal against sentence had no merit and adopted the reasons given by the single judge.

2. The allegation that the Crown Court had acted racially was unsupported and should not have been advanced. The sentencing judge had carefully assessed the particular facts and the applicable arson sentencing guideline.

3. Every element of the sentencing assessment was justified and reasonable. There was no arguable error in the selection or length of the extended determinate sentence.

4. The principal sentencing issue was whether the applicant’s danger to the public required a life sentence because the duration of risk could not sensibly be predicted. The judge was entitled to conclude that a 12-year custodial term with a four-year extended licence period would manage that risk and protect the public. That conclusion was favourable to the applicant, since a life sentence would also have been open to the court.

5. The sentence was neither arguably longer than necessary nor manifestly excessive. The application for an extension of time was also refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for an extension of time, leave to appeal against sentence and a representation order were refused.

• Crown Court at Leeds: On 6 June 2023, HHJ Bayliss KC convicted the applicant of attempting to commit arson with intent to endanger life and imposed an extended determinate sentence of 16 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period.