Hussain & Anor, R v [2020] EWCA Crim 1436 (23 October 2020)

The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive; the sentencing judge correctly applied the relevant guidelines, gave appropriate credit for guilty pleas, and observed the principle of totality. The applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2020] EWCA Crim 1436
Parties: Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Sajjad Hussain; Applicant: Anas Khan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 23 October 2020
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome: leave to appeal against sentence refused
Legal Topics: Robbery, Conspiracy to Rob, Conspiracy to Convert Criminal Property, Conspiracy to Handle Stolen Goods, Sentencing, Credit for Guilty Plea, Totality Principle

Criminal Law Robbery Conspiracy to Rob Conspiracy to Convert Criminal Property Conspiracy to Handle Stolen Goods Sentencing Credit for Guilty Plea Totality Principle

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Sajjad Hussain

Applicant

Anas Khan

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

1 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive
2 Whether appropriate credit was given for guilty pleas
3 Whether the sentencing judge correctly applied the Sentencing Council Guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

leave to appeal against sentence refused

Orders

extension of time granted for Khan's application
applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.