Alenezi v The King

The case of Alenezi v The King involved the appellant who was convicted of one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to make findings in relation to mitigating factors, erred in refusing to rely on untested out-of-court statements, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the appellant sought leave to appeal out of time, without providing an explanation for the delay. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge could properly consider the appellant's recklessness as to consent when determining the objective seriousness of the offence, and whether the absence of an explanation for the delay in applying for leave to appeal was a valid reason to deny the application.

The court considered the nature of recklessness in relation to consent and whether it could appropriately support a finding of the offence being above the mid-range of objective seriousness. The court noted that while recklessness is a less culpable state of mind than intention, it can still warrant a higher sentence where the harm caused is significant. The court also examined the sentencing judge's failure to explicitly address mitigating factors, and whether this omission constituted a significant error. Furthermore, the court assessed the sentencing judge's refusal to consider untested out-of-court statements and whether this decision was justified under the circumstances. Lastly, the court evaluated the overall severity of the sentence in light of the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offence.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in considering the appellant's recklessness as to consent when determining the seriousness of the offence. The court held that recklessness could indeed support a finding of the offence being above the mid-range. Additionally, the court concluded that the sentencing judge's failure to explicitly address mitigating factors did not constitute a significant error, as the overall sentence reflected a comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors. Regarding the untested out-of-court statements, the court found no error in the sentencing judge's refusal to consider them, given the lack of substantiation. Finally, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's criminal history and the need for general deterrence.

The court denied the appellant's application for leave to appeal out of time, due to the lack of an adequate explanation for the delay. The court emphasised the importance of solicitors making timely inquiries and the obligation to explain any delays in seeking leave to appeal. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.