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 CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (HHJ WORSLEY QC) [T20107448] CASE NO 202402832/A5 Neutral Citation Number:[2025] EWCA Crim 1675 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LADY JUSTICE ANDREWS
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON
HER HONOUR JUDGE MORELAND
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
REX
V
YOUSSEF WAHID
__________
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 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
_________
JUDGMENT
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON:
On 22 August 2011 at the Central Criminal Court, the applicant was convicted of murder and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for life with a minimum term of 24 years less time served on remand. An application for leave to appeal against conviction was heard by the Full Court on 13 November 2022 and was refused (R v Wahid [2012] EWCA Crim 2691).
The applicant renews his application for an extension of time of 4658 days in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the Single Judge. The facts are set out in the note produced by the Criminal Appeal Office, and it is not necessary for us to repeat them.
The grounds of appeal are that the minimum term should be reduced to reflect the good behaviour of the applicant. The applicant has served 14 years of the minimum term. His Article 8 rights have been detrimentally impacted by the length of sentence.
In refusing leave to appeal sentence the Single Judge gave the following reasons:
"You were sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term to be served of 24 years less time served on remand for the murder of Fatima Kama. This Court can only interfere with a sentence if it is manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in principle or law.
You suggest that your minimum term should be reduced because of your good behaviour and because it in some way breaches article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, (i) in sentencing you, the Judge took into account your mitigation including your previous good character, (ii) insofar as you have behaved well in prison, that is commendable and something which the Parole Board can take into account when considering your release after you have served the minimum term, but it is not a ground of appeal, and (iii) the sentence, which allows you to seek parole after you have served the minimum term, is not arguably in breach of your human rights. Your grounds are wholly without merit.
In sentencing you, the Judge took the somewhat generous starting point of 15 years, and expressly took into account your mitigation...before also taking into account the severely aggravating factors: the infliction of significant physical suffering before death, your intent to kill, your callous concealment of the victim’s body and the steps you took to avoid conviction. In all the circumstances, the minimum term imposed is not arguably manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in principle or law.
Your appeal is well over 10 years late, and you have given no sensible reason for the delay. That in itself would be sufficient to refuse your applications. However, given my view on the merits of your appeal, I simply refuse all your applications on the merits."
We agree with the reasons given by the Single Judge and have nothing further to add. The application is refused.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk
