R v Matloob Saliheen

Permission to appeal a criminal conviction should be refused where, after considering the original and fresh grounds, the court finds no arguable merit in any proposed challenge. A jury assessing whether images are indecent must apply the standards of decent, ordinary, right-thinking members of the public. Where the defendant had the opportunity to explain the context of the evidence and the trial judge gave careful and appropriate directions, complaints about the presentation or exclusion of evidence will not justify permission to appeal without an identifiable error.

The applicant was convicted at Newcastle Crown Court of three offences involving the distribution of indecent photographs of children, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. He received concurrent community orders, but challenged conviction only.

Permission to appeal was initially refused by a single judge on the papers. The applicant renewed the application and advanced fresh grounds alleging inappropriate judicial comments, unfair exclusion and presentation of evidence, inadequate explanation of message context, failure to prove that thumbnail images had been viewed, and prejudice from knowledge of false allegations arising from an unrelated investigation. The central issue at trial was whether the images were indecent by the applicable public standard.

1. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused the renewed application for permission to appeal on both the original and fresh grounds. The application concerned conviction only and did not challenge sentence.
2. The court considered the applicant’s complaint that the trial judge’s comments about viewing the images might have indicated the judge’s own view to the jury. It found no arguable merit in that ground.
3. The jury’s task was to decide whether the images recovered from the applicant’s phone and admitted to have been forwarded to contacts were indecent by the standards of decent, ordinary, right-thinking members of the public. The applicant gave evidence, which enabled him to explain the context of the messages and his initial denial that he had received or forwarded the images.
4. The court rejected the fresh complaints concerning defence evidence, the context of the messages, the presentation of thumbnail files, proof that the files had been viewed, and the unrelated police investigation. The jury were ideally placed to assess the evidence, and the trial judge had given careful and appropriate directions. The court found no arguable ground for criticism of those directions.
5. Accordingly, there was no arguable merit in any proposed ground and permission to appeal conviction was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 25 February 2026, the renewed application for permission to appeal conviction was refused on the original and fresh grounds: [2026] EWCA Crim 327.
2. Single judge — Permission to appeal was refused on the papers after consideration of the grounds and the prosecution’s response.
3. Newcastle Crown Court — On 16 August 2024, the applicant was convicted by a jury of three offences of distributing indecent photographs of children. On 26 October 2024, he was sentenced to concurrent community orders with activity requirements and unpaid work.