R v Noor Ali Kayani

On an application to extend time for renewing an application for leave to appeal against sentence, the court must address both merits and delay. A sentence will be arguable only if it is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Intoxication is not mitigating where the offence was committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol; it may aggravate. Significant premeditation, use and concealment of a dangerous weapon, intention to inflict further harm, serious lasting injury and a sustained assault can justify high culpability, a greater-harm classification and a substantial uplift. Relevant previous convictions may attract weight where they share material features with the current offence. A very lengthy unexplained delay is itself sufficient reason to refuse an extension of time.

Following a trial in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames, the applicant was convicted of wounding with intent, possessing a bladed article and possessing amphetamine. He had pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis. He received an extended sentence of 18 years for wounding with intent, comprising 15 years’ custody and three years on extended licence.

He sought a 34-day extension of time to renew an application for a further 1,286-day extension in which to seek leave to appeal against sentence. He relied on alleged intoxication, provocation, the seriousness and duration of the attack, the weight given to previous convictions, remorse and family circumstances. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and whether the delay should be excused.

The court refused the application for an extension of time. It stated that, even if time had been extended, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence would have been refused.

1. The relevant question was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The applicant had raised no arguable ground meeting that threshold.
2. Alleged intoxication would not have been mitigating. The commission of an offence under the influence of drugs or alcohol was capable of aggravating the sentence. In any event, the applicant had denied being intoxicated when interviewed for the pre-sentence report.
3. The alleged provocation was unsupported, had not been raised in the Defence Case Statement or the pre-sentence interview, and contradicted the applicant’s earlier account. It could not provide a sound basis for challenging sentence.
4. The judge was entitled to find high culpability because the attack was significantly premeditated. The applicant had lured the victim to his address, concealed a particularly dangerous machete and intended to cause more harm than was inflicted. The judge was also entitled to classify the case as one involving greater harm. The sustained or repeated assault was sufficient, and the severity and lasting effects of the injury independently supported that conclusion.
5. The judge was entitled to place weight on two earlier violent convictions because they had material similarities with the present offence, including premeditated weapon use and an unprovoked attack on a stranger.
6. No satisfactory explanation was given for the very lengthy delay. That failure provided an additional and independent reason to refuse an extension of time. Remorse and current family difficulties did not establish that the sentence was unlawful, wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the application for a 34-day extension of time to renew the application for a further extension of time. The court stated that the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence would also have been refused on its merits.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: Following trial, convicted the applicant of wounding with intent, possessing a bladed article and possessing amphetamine. The applicant had pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis. He was sentenced to an extended term of 18 years for wounding with intent.