R v Gurpal Raytt
[2024] EWCA Crim 828
R v Choudhry Hussain
17 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 831
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of a crime related to skipping bail. The court decided that the original trial didn't have the right to try him for that specific crime, so they cancelled the conviction. They didn't need to look at the length of his sentence because the conviction was gone.
Key Facts
- •Coudhry Hussain pleaded guilty to a Bail Act offence on 29 January 2020.
- •He was originally convicted in 2015 in his absence for serious offences after fleeing to Pakistan.
- •He was extradited back to the UK.
- •He received an 8-month sentence for the Bail Act offence, consecutive to a 19-year sentence from 2016.
- •The Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to try him for the Bail Act offence due to non-compliance with section 151A of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •His time in Pakistani custody was not counted towards his 8-month sentence.
Legal Principles
The Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to try the appellant for the Bail Act offence because the conditions of section 151A of the Extradition Act 2003 were not met.
R v Seddon [2009] EWCA Crim 483 and R v Shepherd [2019] EWCA Crim 1062; [2019] 2 Cr App R 26
Outcomes
The appeal against conviction was allowed.
The Crown Court had no jurisdiction to try the appellant for the Bail Act offence, rendering the conviction a nullity.
The appellant's plea of guilty was vacated.
The conviction was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction.
The appeal against sentence was not proceeded with (though it would have likely succeeded).
The conviction was quashed; the sentencing issue became moot.
A representation order was granted for the appellant's counsel and solicitors.
To ensure payment for their work on the successful appeal.