R v Mariama Bah

Where a conviction turns on a conflict of evidence, there is no arguable ground of appeal if both accounts were tested in cross-examination and the trial judge fairly summarised the evidence for the jury. A sentence will not be interfered with where the judge correctly applies the sentencing guidelines, identifies substantial mitigation, and lawfully balances it against serious and lasting harm caused by the deliberate use of a weapon.

The applicant was convicted at Cardiff Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, after hot oil from a saucepan caused burns to her housemate.

Her case at trial was that the incident was accidental. The prosecution alleged that she deliberately threw the pan of hot oil, intending really serious injury. She received eight years’ imprisonment.

She renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence after the single judge had refused both. She alleged inadequate representation and contended that the sentence was excessive. The central issues were whether either application disclosed an arguable ground and whether extensions of time should be granted.

1. All applications were refused. No purpose would be served by extending time to renew either application for leave to appeal.
2. There was no arguable challenge to conviction. The case depended on a conflict between the complainant’s and the applicant’s accounts of the incident. Both accounts had been tested in cross-examination, and the trial judge had fairly summed up the evidence. The complaints about the applicant’s legal representatives did not disclose an arguable basis for overturning the jury’s verdict.
3. There was no error in the sentencing judge’s approach. The judge was entitled, on the jury’s verdict, to treat the hot oil as a weapon and to place culpability in category A. The evidence supported findings of long-term scarring, hypersensitivity and moderate psychological harm.
4. The judge had properly identified substantial mitigation, including remorse, previous good character, personal circumstances and delay in sentencing. He balanced that mitigation against the serious and lasting harm, reducing the sentence he would otherwise have imposed from nine and a half years to eight years.
5. An eight-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 797.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: the applicant was convicted on 10 May 2023 of an offence contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and was sentenced on 11 March 2024 to eight years’ imprisonment.