Saleh, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was sentenced on 12 June 2024 at the Central Criminal Court to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 36 years for the murder of the Victim on 26 April 2021. The Applicant seeks leave to appeal against this sentence. His application was initially refused as it was brought out of time, and he now renews his application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal. The sole ground of appeal is that the minimum term should have been reduced to reflect the time the Applicant spent in custody awaiting trial.

The murder involved the Victim, an 18-year-old innocent bystander, who was shot and stabbed in a residential area in East London by the Applicant and a co-accused, Defendant A. The co-accused and the Applicant had approached the Victim, who was then fatally attacked in broad daylight. The offenders fled in a stolen car which was later found set alight. The Applicant was convicted of murder and related offences concerning possession of the weapons used.

Prior to the murder, the Applicant had committed other offences including attempted murder in February 2021. He was arrested for those offences after the murder and remanded in custody on 10 May 2021. He was interviewed regarding the murder on 9 September 2021 but was not charged until 13 April 2023. Meanwhile, on 7 March 2022, the Applicant was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment with an extended licence period for the earlier offences. By the time he was charged and remanded for the murder, he was already serving this custodial sentence.

At sentencing, the judge set a notional minimum term of 36 years but adjourned the decision on whether to adjust the term to reflect time spent on remand. At a subsequent hearing, the judge declined to reduce the minimum term for the Applicant, while a reduction was granted for Defendant A to reflect time spent on remand prior to sentencing for unrelated offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in refusing to reduce the Applicant's minimum term to reflect time spent in custody awaiting trial.
2. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
3. Whether the distinction made by the judge between the Applicant and co-accused Defendant A regarding remand time credit was legally justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The delay in submitting the appeal was attributable to the Applicant’s lawyers, not the Applicant himself.
• The judge was wrong not to reduce the minimum term to account for the time the Applicant spent in custody awaiting trial.
• The sentence was manifestly excessive given the circumstances, particularly considering the Applicant had been in custody since May 2021.
• The judge incorrectly distinguished the Applicant’s case from that of Defendant A, which resulted in unfairness.
• Had the offences been charged together, the minimum term would have been lower, reflecting the totality of offending.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Trendell [2022] EWCA (Crim) 1434	Relevant principles on sentencing and credit for time spent on remand.	The court found the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles from this authority in refusing to reduce the minimum term for time spent on remand when the Applicant was already serving a custodial sentence for unrelated offences.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the Applicant’s legal representatives and not the Applicant himself. The key legal question was whether the sentencing judge erred in refusing to reduce the minimum term to reflect custody time spent awaiting trial for the murder.

The court noted that the Applicant was serving a custodial sentence for unrelated offences throughout the entire remand period for the murder. Applying section 240ZA(4) and (10) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the judge correctly ruled that days spent on remand should not be deducted from the minimum term in such circumstances.

The judge had taken into account the totality of offending and the Applicant’s custodial history, including the earlier 16-year sentence, when setting the minimum term. The court observed that the murder was an extremely serious offence with multiple aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, planning and premeditation, the presence of the public, and the Applicant’s role as the principal offender.

The court distinguished the Applicant’s case from that of the co-accused, Defendant A, who was credited with a reduction for a period spent on remand before sentencing for unrelated offences. The court found no error in this distinction because the Applicant’s remand period overlapped entirely with his serving of a custodial sentence for other offences.

Overall, the court concluded that the sentencing judge’s approach was legally sound and that the minimum term was neither excessive nor unfair, given the gravity of the offences and the principle of totality.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL against the minimum term imposed on the Applicant. Although the court would have granted an extension of time for the appeal if it had merit, the grounds advanced were not properly arguable.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant’s sentence remains unchanged. No new legal precedent was established. The decision confirms the established principle that time spent on remand does not reduce a minimum term when the offender is already serving a custodial sentence for unrelated offences during that period.