Skip to Main Content

Find Case LawBeta

Judgments and decisions from 2001 onwards

R v Hersh Osman

[2024] EWCA Crim 854

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE

CROWN COURT AT LEEDS

HHJ BAYLISS KC T20227209

CASE NO 202303974/A5

NCN: [2024] EWCA Crim 854

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Thursday 4 July 2024

Before:

LORD JUSTICE MALES

MR JUSTICE BRYAN

MRS JUSTICE THORNTON

REX

V

HERSH OSMAN

_________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

_________

NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION

_________

J U D G M E N T

MRS JUSTICE THORNTON:

1.

On 6 June 2023 in the Crown Court at Leeds, the Applicant was convicted of attempting to commit arson with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. He was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 16 years comprising a custodial term of 12 years and an extended licence period of 4 years.

2.

The Applicant renews his application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal against sentence and for a representation order after refusal by the single judge.

3.

The background to the offending is set out in the Court of Appeal Office note. In short, the offender was unhappy with the purchase of a television set so went to the shop where he had bought the television armed with an accelerant (petrol), a can and a lighter. He poured petrol around the shop before unsuccessfully attempting to set light to it. As well as someone in the shop at the time, the shop was located under a factory full of workers present at the time.

4.

We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal advanced by the Applicant. We consider that they have no merit for the reasons given by the single judge as follows:

“You accuse Leeds Crown Court, where you were sentenced, of having been racist towards you. There is no basis whatever for that allegation. You should not have put it forward. Apart from that improper complaint, you simply assert that you received a much longer sentence than you should have received. However, HHJ Bayliss KC assessed your case carefully, by reference to its factual circumstances and the Sentencing Guideline that applies to arson offences. Every element of the learned Judge’s assessment was fully justified by the facts of the case, and reasonable. There is no reasonable argument that any of it was wrong; in fact, I agree with all of it. The only difficult question in your case was whether you will be sufficiently dangerous for a longer period than it is possible sensibly to predict, so that a life sentence was required. HHJ Bayliss KC considered that an extended sentence with a 12-year custodial term should be enough to manage the risk you pose and protect the public. That was a favourable decision to you, I do not think it would have been unreasonable to conclude that a life sentence was required.

There is no arguable error in your sentence. It is not much longer than it should have been. It is not arguably longer than it needed to be. It is certainly not manifestly excessive. Your application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.”

5.

The application for an extension of time is also refused.

Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the

proceedings or part thereof.

Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400

Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk

R v Hersh Osman

[2024] EWCA Crim 854

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (130.8 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download this judgment as XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.