Naaim, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 32, pleaded guilty on 17 May 2025 at The City Crown Court to three counts of robbery, two counts of theft and two driving offences and was sentenced to a total of 27 months' imprisonment. He sought renewal of permission to appeal against conviction in relation to the three robbery counts only; the single judge had previously refused permission. The renewal application was brought 19 days out of time.

The robberies involved a broadly consistent modus operandi: elderly complainants at an ATM at Company A in The City were approached closely and intimidated into using their bank cards; each later discovered substantial sums (in aggregate just under £3,000) removed from their accounts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should grant an extension of time (19 days) to renew the application for permission to appeal.
2. Whether leave to appeal against the robbery convictions should be granted on the basis that the Appellant's guilty pleas were unsafe, given assertions about legal advice and the evidential element of violence or threat of violence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant submitted that at the time of pleading guilty he was not fully aware that the robbery pleas necessarily included elements of violence or threats of violence and that he believed he should have been convicted and sentenced only for thefts rather than robberies.
• The Appellant suggested he had not been properly advised by his lawyers and implied that inadequate advice led him to plead guilty rather than to contest the robbery elements; he stated fear of a longer sentence if he pleaded not guilty.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recounted the single judge's reasoning: the original refusal was influenced by the fact that the Appellant had legal representation when pleading guilty and had not at that time waived privilege, so the content of advice could not be examined. The Appellant subsequently waived privilege and provided contemporaneous notes of advice from his former legal team.

The court reviewed a conference note from Attorney Ashley (attending prior to the PTPH) which plainly recorded that she had advised the Appellant against pleading guilty to robbery because the element of violence or threat of violence was arguably absent. The Appellant nonetheless insisted on pleading guilty to all counts.

The court noted the psychiatric report relied on at sentencing contained no suggestion that the Appellant was unfit to plead or incapable of giving instructions. On that basis the court concluded the Appellant had been properly advised and had deliberately chosen to plead guilty.

The court made three further observations: (1) had there been a trial it was more likely than not the robbery convictions would have been sustained because complainants reported feeling physically intimidated; (2) the sentence for the robberies was at the low end of the applicable range, indicating minimal use or threat of force and that any difference in sentence between robbery and theft would likely have been small; and (3) the contemporaneous advice undermined the Appellant's central criticism that his lawyers made mistakes.

Holding and Implications

The court granted an extension of time of 19 days to renew the application but refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.

Direct consequences: the robbery convictions are to be regarded as safe and the renewed application for permission to appeal against those convictions was refused. The opinion does not purport to establish any new legal precedent beyond its application to the facts of this case.