R v Alkhader Qasem

A sentencing judge may make a disputed factual finding affecting sentence to the criminal standard, particularly where the judge heard the trial evidence. An appellate court should not interfere where the finding was properly open on the evidence and cannot be characterised as unreasonable. Incomplete CCTV does not necessarily contradict eyewitness evidence. Coverage, timing and viewpoint must be assessed. A jury’s rejection of self-defence, combined with compelling eyewitness evidence and an implausible alternative account, may support the sentencing finding. Where the evidence overwhelmingly supports the finding, permission to appeal may be refused.

Following a trial before Ellenbogen J at the Crown Court at Manchester, the applicant was convicted of murder. He was sentenced to detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure, with a minimum term of 14 years and 113 days.

The sentence depended substantially on whether he had taken a knife to the scene. The judge accepted eyewitness evidence that he had produced a knife from his waistband and found that he had used his own knife to kill the victim. A single judge refused permission to appeal.

The renewed application argued that CCTV footage demonstrated that the applicant did not have a knife and that the sentencing finding was unreasonable. The central issue was whether, considering the CCTV and other evidence, the judge was entitled to make that finding.

The Court of Appeal Criminal Division refused the renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence.

1. Review of the sentencing finding. The applicant did not challenge the judge’s legal approach to making factual findings for sentence. It was accepted that, in the ordinary case, the trial judge is best placed to assess the evidence. The question was whether the finding that the applicant had brought a knife to the scene could properly be characterised as unreasonable.
2. Eyewitness and CCTV evidence. The judge was entitled to attach particular weight to Mr Rogers’s evidence. He had seen the whole confrontation, was able to identify the applicant by his distinctive clothing, and remained unshaken in his evidence that the applicant had produced a four-inch silver object from his waistband. The CCTV was an incomplete record of the initial confrontation. It showed only its final stage, from a different and more limited viewpoint. The knife was concealed until removed from the waistband, and the applicant was almost entirely hidden behind Mia when Prince turned to flee. The footage was therefore not inconsistent with the eyewitness account.
3. Rejection of the alternative account. Prince had initially attacked the applicant but then suddenly fled. The court considered that the production of the knife was the only realistic explanation for that change in behaviour. The jury had rejected self-defence. In light of that verdict and the other evidence, the judge was entitled to reject as utterly implausible the account that the applicant had picked up Prince’s knife, that Prince had retrieved another knife from a bush, and that the applicant had then used Prince’s knife.
4. Further submission. The suggested possibility that Mia had possessed the knife was unsupported by the CCTV and Mr Rogers’s evidence, and had never been advanced by the applicant. It could not undermine the judge’s finding. The evidence was overwhelming and any contrary conclusion would have been unrealistic. The single judge’s refusal of permission was upheld.

• Crown Court at Manchester: Following conviction for murder on 6 November 2024, Ellenbogen J sentenced the applicant on 19 December 2024 to detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure, with a minimum term of 14 years and 113 days.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): A single judge refused permission to appeal against sentence. On renewal, the Court, in [2026] EWCA Crim 474, refused the application.