Sartip-Zadeh & Ors, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1250 (05 September 2025)

Sartip-Zadeh & Ors, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1250 (05 September 2025)

The applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were refused because the grounds advanced disclosed no arguable case that the convictions were unsafe or that the sentences were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The trial judge's management and directions were found to be fair and in accordance with law, and the sentences imposed were within the appropriate guideline ranges, reflecting the applicants' culpability and the aggravating features of the case.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1250
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/defendant: Damien Sartip-Zadeh; Applicant/defendant: Dale Sartip-Zadeh; Applicant/defendant: Diane Sartip-Zadeh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence After Refusal by Single Judge
Outcome
all applications refused
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Trading, Aggressive Commercial Practice, Money Laundering, Appeals Against Conviction, Appeals Against Sentence, Judicial Case Management, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Fraudulent Trading Aggressive Commercial Practice Money Laundering Appeals Against Conviction Appeals Against Sentence Judicial Case Management Fair Trial Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Damien Sartip-Zadeh

Applicant/defendant

Dale Sartip-Zadeh

Applicant/defendant

Diane Sartip-Zadeh

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence After Refusal by Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions were unsafe due to alleged procedural and evidential errors
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in case management, including refusal of adjournments, appointment of intermediary, and handling of defence counsel issues

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were refused because the grounds advanced disclosed no arguable case that the convictions were unsafe or that the sentences were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The trial judge's management and directions were found to be fair and in accordance with law, and the sentences imposed were within the appropriate guideline ranges, reflecting the applicants' culpability and the aggravating features of the case.

Court Disposition

all applications refused

Orders

  • Extension of time refused for all applicants
  • Leave to appeal against conviction refused for all applicants