R v Mahmood Hamad

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the court confirmed that the complainant’s status as an escort, the applicant’s previous payment for escorts, and her post-offence assault did not reduce the seriousness of the offending. Delay was not material where it was neither inordinate nor likely to affect sentence in light of the seriousness of the offences. A finding of dangerousness, supporting an extended determinate sentence under the Sentencing Act 2020, was justified by the nature of the offending and the applicant’s comments after the event. The application was refused.

After a jury trial at Southwark Crown Court, the applicant was convicted of assault by penetration and intentional strangulation. On 4 October 2024 he received a 12-year extended sentence on count 1, comprising seven years’ custody and five years’ extended licence, with a concurrent 18-month sentence on count 2. A single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant renewed the application, arguing that the sentence was excessive, that the offending was short-lived and caused relatively little distress, that he had limited relevant antecedents, and that delay was not reflected. The central issues were seriousness, delay and dangerousness.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Martin Spencer, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

1. The court agreed with the single judge’s reasons. The sentencing judge had been well placed to assess the seriousness of the offending. The matters relied on by the applicant did not make the sentence arguably excessive. The complainant’s occupation as an escort, the applicant’s previous payment for escort services, and the complainant’s attack after the offences did not detract from the seriousness of the offending (paras [18]-[19]).
2. Delay did not provide an arguable basis for reducing the sentence. It was not inordinate and, given the seriousness of the offending, was not likely to make a material difference (para [18]).
3. The nature of the offending and the applicant’s comments after the event entitled the sentencing judge to find that the dangerousness criteria were met. The finding supported an extended determinate sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (paras [16], [18]-[19]).
4. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused (para [20]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 30 October 2025, the court agreed with the single judge’s reasons and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 1503.
• Single judge — Refused leave to appeal against sentence, finding that the grounds were not arguable.
• Crown Court at Southwark — Following conviction after trial, sentenced the applicant on 4 October 2024 to a 12-year extended sentence on count 1, comprising seven years’ custody and five years’ extended licence, with a concurrent 18-month sentence on count 2.