R v Hoien Youself Nedjad

Under the rule of specialty, an extraditing court has no jurisdiction to try an offence not specified in the extradition warrant. A guilty plea cannot validate the resulting conviction, which is a nullity.

In sentencing for sexual assault, guideline factors must be assessed without double-counting. Features partly reflected in the harm category may still bear on seriousness, and several Category 2 factors may justify moving above the starting point. Previous similar sexual offences, drinking and prolonged evasion of justice may aggravate sentence. Offending while subject to notification requirements is not an additional aggravating factor where the underlying convictions are already accounted for. An extended sentence was upheld because the custodial term was not manifestly excessive.

The applicant had been convicted in his absence of sexual assault and later extradited from Germany. He pleaded guilty to failing to surrender to bail and was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment, concurrent with an extended eight-year sentence for the sexual assault.

He sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against the Bail Act conviction, arguing that the extradition warrant did not specify that offence. He also challenged the length of the custodial term, the categorisation of the sexual assault, the treatment of aggravating factors and the application of section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Conviction appeal. The extradition warrant did not specify the offence of failing to surrender to bail. By reason of the rule of specialty, the court therefore had no jurisdiction to deal with that offence. Applying R v Shepherd [2019] EWCA Crim 1062, the conviction was a nullity despite the applicant’s guilty plea. The necessary extension of time and leave were granted, and the conviction was quashed.

Sentence appeal. The extended eight-year sentence for sexual assault was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the applicant was dangerous, to place the offending in Category 1B, and to move up the guideline range because of aggravating features.

1. Location, timing and the presence of others were at least partly encompassed by the Category 1 harm assessment. However, the presence of three Category 2 factors nevertheless increased the seriousness of the offence. The judge was required to avoid double-counting.
2. Offending while subject to notification requirements was not a separate aggravating factor in addition to the previous convictions to which the notification requirement related.
3. The applicant’s drinking was a further aggravating factor. His previous similar sexual offences also supported movement above the guideline starting point.
4. Although the Bail Act conviction was quashed, the applicant’s evasion of justice by leaving the country and remaining abroad for three and a half years, together with the effect on the victim and the justice system, was a further weighty aggravating factor.

The custodial term at the top of the guideline range was therefore not excessive. Leave to appeal sentence was refused and the sentence appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted an extension of time and leave to appeal against the Bail Act conviction, allowed that appeal and quashed the conviction; refused leave to appeal against sentence and dismissed the sentence appeal: [2025] EWCA Crim 1834.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: convicted the applicant in his absence of sexual assault on 29 September 2021 and sentenced him on 28 April 2025 to an extended sentence of eight years, with four weeks’ imprisonment for failing to surrender to bail, concurrent.