R v Damien Sartip-Zadeh & Ors

On a renewed application for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal is confined to the grounds of appeal and cannot consider new complaints raised only at the hearing. Where an extension of time is short, the court may examine the merits first and refuse both the extension and leave if no arguable ground is shown. Grounds must identify the alleged error, the relevant ruling or event, and how it could have made the conviction unsafe. In sentence appeals, the court assesses the total sentence by reference to culpability, the scale and duration of offending, aggravating features, totality, delay and personal mitigation. The renewed applications were refused because the convictions were safe and the sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

Three members of one family applied to renew applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal. Damien Sartip-Zadeh and Dale Sartip-Zadeh challenged both conviction and sentence. Diane Sartip-Zadeh challenged conviction only. They had been convicted at the Crown Court at Leeds in April 2023 following a trial before HHJ Belcher. Damien and Dale were convicted of fraudulent trading and related offences; Diane was convicted of concealing, converting and transferring criminal property. The first two applicants received substantial custodial sentences, while Diane received a suspended sentence order.

A single judge refused the applications. The central issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the grounds disclosed arguable errors concerning lost server data, conduct of co-defendants’ cases, trial management, intermediary assistance, the no-case submission and sentencing.

Mrs Justice May, with Lord Justice Coulson agreeing, refused all five renewed applications. The extensions of time were refused and, in any event, leave to appeal was refused. The court concluded that the convictions were entirely safe and that the sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. Scope of the applications. The court was confined to matters raised in the grounds of appeal. It could not consider new allegations or material raised for the first time in memoranda or oral submissions. Because the requested extensions were relatively short and the applicants represented themselves, the court examined the substantive merits first and would have granted an extension only if an arguable appeal justified leave.
2. Conviction grounds. The complaints concerning the encrypted KM/1 server did not undermine the fairness of the trial. The trial process and the jury directions adequately addressed any prejudice, including the possibility that the applicants had deliberately withheld the password. Complaints about co-defendants’ decisions to dispense with counsel or not give evidence did not establish prejudice to another defendant’s trial. The court would not speculate about what might have happened had Dale chosen to give evidence when that was his considered decision after advice and time for reflection.
3. Diane’s grounds concerning an intermediary, breaks, case management, alleged bias and the conduct of Dale’s defence were unparticularised or unsupported. The evidence did not establish a need for intermediary assistance with communication. The court also found no merit in the challenge to the dismissal of the no-case submission. A judge may dismiss a bad application without requiring a response from the prosecution, particularly where repeated applications are made while a jury is waiting.
4. Sentence. Damien and Dale had high culpability. The large sums, lengthy offending period and restarting of the same business after extensive warnings were aggravating features. Concurrent sentences for the fraudulent trading counts and a consecutive, reduced sentence for the money-laundering count properly reflected totality. The judge had also taken account of delay and relevant personal mitigation. The sentences therefore disclosed no arguable basis for appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal were refused. The court held that the convictions were safe and the sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle: [2025] EWCA Crim 1250.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal: Refused the applicants’ applications for leave to appeal and, where necessary, extensions of time.
• Crown Court at Leeds: Following convictions on 5 April 2023, HHJ Belcher sentenced Damien to nine years and six months’ imprisonment, Dale to eight years’ imprisonment, and Diane to a suspended sentence order of two years’ imprisonment.