R v Gol Ahmed Zazai
[2023] EWCA Crim 542
R v Mohammed Saddam Hussain & Anor
31 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1100
Court of Appeal
Two men convicted of murder wanted a higher court to review their case. The judges said they couldn't, because the law doesn't allow it after already rejecting their first appeal. The judges said there wasn't a mistake in their original decision anyway.
Key Facts
- •Mohammed Saddam Hussain and Faisal Fiaz were convicted of murder on February 15, 2021, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- •Both applicants applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing points of law of general public importance.
- •The Court of Appeal previously refused their applications for leave to appeal.
- •The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the law regarding complicity liability, widening it improperly.
- •Fiaz also argued his life sentence was grossly disproportionate.
Legal Principles
Appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision on an appeal under Part I of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 requires leave, granted only if a point of law of general public importance is involved.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, sections 33(1) and 33(2)
The Court of Appeal's decision on whether to certify a point of law is not an appeal against its own decision, but an assessment of whether its decision involves a point of law of general public importance.
R v Dunn [2010] EWCA Crim 1823
The Court of Appeal can only certify a point of law of general public importance if that point was involved in a decision on an appeal for which leave had been given.
R v Garwood and Others [2017] EWCA Crim 59
A secondary party must be proved to have assisted or encouraged the principal to commit the crime or type of crime which the principal in fact committed.
R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
The Sentencing Act 2020, section 322(4) and Schedule 21, paragraph 8, governs minimum sentence terms.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 322(4) and Schedule 21, paragraph 8
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused the applications for certification of points of law of general public importance.
The Court of Appeal held it lacked the power to certify points of law arising from a decision refusing leave to appeal. The court also found the applicants' arguments on the merits to be without merit, applying established legal principles.