Court of Appeal refuses renewed sentence application but corrects an unlawful sentence: R v Amaaz
On 16 October 2026 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), comprising Lord Justice Jeremy Baker, Mr Justice Bryan and Mr Justice Dexter Dias, heard the renewed application of Mohammed Fahir Amaaz for leave to appeal against a total sentence of 42 months. Mr Amaaz was 19 at conviction. The offences arose from an incident in which he was found to have assaulted two police officers, together with a separate offence against a civilian.
Leave had been refused on the papers by Lady Justice Andrews. Mr Amaaz exercised his right to renew before the full court. Imran Khan KC, leading Ms Chloe Gardner and Ms Danielle Buckett of Nexus Chambers - https://nexuschambers.com/ - appeared pro bono, instructed by Imran Khan & Partners.
The judgment
Mr Justice Bryan gave the judgment of the court. He made clear that the court agreed with the single judge, but because the grounds had been fully argued, the court set out its own reasons. Each of the seven grounds was found unarguable.
Factual basis (Ground 1). The judge had not used the procedural history of a separate count against Mr Amaaz. He had presided over both trials and was best placed to find the facts. The CCTV showed that the assaults on the two officers were distinct from the earlier incident.
Self-defence and unlawful arrest (Ground 2). No principle requires violence to be treated as excessive self-defence merely because an arrest may have been unlawful. The question is always fact-specific. The judge was entitled to find that Mr Amaaz was the aggressor.
Categorisation (Grounds 3 and 4). Both assaults were properly placed in category 1A. The court accepted that an attack may be “persistent” even if it is short-lived. It held that the uplift for the second officer was not arguably manifestly excessive.
Youth and maturity (Ground 5). The judge had made a 25% reduction for youth. Having observed Mr Amaaz across two trials, he was entitled to find that Mr Amaaz was not immature beyond his chronological age. The court noted that the judge had expressly guarded against unconscious bias in relation to background and cultural origins.
Mitigation and remorse (Ground 6). The judge had given proper weight to good character and the references. He had correctly treated the absence of remorse as a lost opportunity for further mitigation, not as an aggravating feature.
Totality (Ground 7). The offence against the civilian was separate in time, place and victim, and justified a separate sentence. The total was just and proportionate.
The sentence that was corrected
The court then raised a point of significance. The sentences had been pronounced as imprisonment. Section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020 prohibits imprisonment for a person under 21 at conviction, so the sentence as pronounced was unlawful. Following the case of Stocker, the court held that a purely technical defect did not require the appeal to be allowed. It directed that the Crown Court record be amended to show detention in a young offender institution.
The court gave “very careful consideration” to making a loss of time order but declined to do so. Lord Justice Baker observed that this should be borne in mind in future cases.
Reflection
The outcome is not the one we sought. Even so, the hearing shows why renewal matters. It was only on renewal that an unlawful sentence came to light and was corrected. Those who represent young defendants should take account of the court’s remarks on loss of time in relation to future renewed applications.
News Coverage:
