Nedjad, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried in absentia on 29 September 2021 at The Court and convicted of sexual assault; a sentence was adjourned and a warrant not backed for bail was issued for his arrest. The Appellant left the jurisdiction for several years and was later located in The State. He was extradited to The City and produced on 17 November 2024, pleading guilty to an offence of failing to surrender to bail. On 28 April 2025 at The Court the Appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence of eight years for sexual assault (a four-year custodial element and a four-year extended licence) and received a concurrent four-week imprisonment for the Bail Act offence. Before the appellate panel are (1) an application for an extension of time of 223 days with leave to appeal the conviction for the Bail Act offence and (2) an application for leave to appeal against sentence. Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to the victim, referred to as "C".

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should grant an extension of time and leave to appeal the conviction for the Bail Act offence given the circumstances of extradition.
2. Whether the Appellant's conviction for failing to surrender to bail is lawful in light of the Rule of Specialty and the terms of the extradition warrant.
3. Whether the custodial element of the extended sentence (four years) for the sexual assault was manifestly excessive such that leave to appeal against sentence should be granted and the sentence reduced.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Attorney [Last Name] contended that the extradition warrant did not specify the Bail Act offence; by the Rule of Specialty the court lacked jurisdiction to convict the Appellant of failing to surrender to bail, rendering any conviction for that offence unlawful.
• On sentence, Attorney [Last Name] accepted the Category 1B classification but argued the custodial term of four years was excessive and that the judge erred by prioritising the need for an extended sentence before setting the appropriate custodial term. He submitted that factors such as location, timing and presence of others amounted only to being in a nightclub and were already reflected in the Category 1 harm assessment and should not have increased the custodial term to the top of the guideline range. He also submitted that offending while under notification requirements should not be treated as an additional aggravating factor separate from the previous convictions.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution accepted that the conviction for the Bail Act offence was a nullity given the extradition warrant and the Rule of Specialty.
• The prosecution opposed the appeal against sentence, supporting the judge's assessment of dangerousness, categorisation as Category 1B, and the decision to move up the guideline range due to multiple aggravating features.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the conviction for the Bail Act offence. Applying the Rule of Specialty and relying on R v Shepherd [2019] EWCA Crim 1062, the court found the extradition warrant did not specify the Bail Act offence and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to entertain that charge. The conviction for failing to surrender to bail was a nullity; the prosecution did not contest that conclusion. The court granted the extension of time and allowed that appeal, quashing the Bail Act conviction.

On the sentence appeal, the court reviewed the judge's application of the Sentencing Council guideline. The judge placed the sexual assault in Category 1 harm and culpability in Category B (Category 1B), identifying three Category 2 factors (touching naked genitalia, ejaculating onto the victim, and the victim's vulnerability due to intoxication). The judge also considered aggravating factors (location and timing, the Appellant's intoxication, the presence of others, prior similar convictions, ejaculation, and the Appellant being subject to notification requirements) while taking care to avoid double-counting. The judge assessed dangerousness in light of prior sexual assault convictions and reports indicating a high risk of harm, concluding the Appellant was a dangerous offender and imposing an eight-year extended sentence.

The appellate court analysed Attorney [Last Name]'s submissions that the custodial term was excessive, noting the judge was entitled to find dangerousness, to place the offence in Category 1B, and to increase the custodial term within the guideline range for relevant aggravating features. The court accepted the point that offending while subject to notification requirements should not be double-counted, but found other aggravating factors properly justified the uplift: the Appellant's intoxication, three Category 2 factors increasing seriousness beyond Category 1 placement, previous similar sexual assaults demonstrating a pattern, and the Appellant's evasion of justice by leaving the country for three-and-a-half years which had a significant impact on the victim and the administration of justice. Balancing these considerations, the court concluded the custodial term at the top of the guideline range was not excessive.

Holding and Implications

Quashing of Conviction: The court granted the extension of time, allowed the appeal against conviction for the Bail Act offence and QUASHED that conviction on the basis that the extradition warrant did not permit prosecution for that offence (Rule of Specialty).

Sentence Appeal: The court refused leave to appeal against sentence and dismissed the appeal; the eight-year extended sentence for the sexual assault offence was upheld.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Bail Act conviction is nullified and the extended sentence for the sexual assault remains in force. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond applying existing authorities and sentencing principles.