R v Amran Naaim [2026] EWCA Crim 470

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.[2026] EWCA Crim 470Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Friday 13 March 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE COULSONMR JUSTICE JAYHIS HONOUR JUDGE LEONARD KC(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
AMRAN NAAIM__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________NON COUNSEL APPLICATION_________JUDGMENT
[1]The applicant is now 32. On 17 May 2025 at Wolverhampton Crown Court, he pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery, two counts of theft and two driving offences. He was sentenced to a total of 27 months' imprisonment.[2]He now seeks to renew his application for permission to appeal against conviction in relation to the robbery counts only, following refusal by the single judge. His application to renew was made 19 days out of time. The Facts of the Offending[3]In relation to the three counts of robbery, the applicant's modus operandi was broadly the same each time. Each of the complainants that he targeted were elderly men or women. They endeavoured to use the ATM at Lloyds Bank in Wednesfield. The applicant would typically come up very close to them, intimidate them into using their bank card, only for them to then find that there was a problem with the machine. In each case, they subsequently discovered that substantial sums of money, totalling just under £3,000 for the three robberies, had been removed from their accounts by the applicant. The Original Application for Leave to Appeal[4]The original application for leave to appeal raised various points about the inconsistencies between the CCTV footage and what the complainants said in their statements. As the single judge pointed out, there could be nothing in any of those complaints, because the applicant had been legally represented when he had pleaded guilty to the three counts of robbery. In addition, again as the single judge pointed out, the applicant had not waived privilege, so it was not possible to see what advice the applicant had been given by his lawyers.[5]The single judge therefore had no hesitation in refusing permission to appeal. The Subsequent Developments[6]The applicant has now waived privilege and we shall return in a moment to what the applicant's counsel and solicitors advised about the case against him. But before we do that it is necessary to put that material into context.[7]In one of his submissions to the Court the applicant said this:
"After further reading the SJ decision I would like to make the Court aware that at the time of my plea, I was not fully aware that my guilty pleas for the robbery offences were including the elements of violence or threat of violence. I thought I was doing the right thing by owning up to the offences, not fully aware or realising I would be punished/sentenced for violence that I had never used. I feel like my Solicitor and the CPS/Prosecution should have spoken about these elements and the evidence and made a more appropriate decision between them, rather than me having to look deep into the evidence bundle to find these mistakes that have made me question my plea to the offences of robbery. It’s not that I’m not guilty for these crimes its more of I believe I should have the robbery charges looked at and I be correctly sentenced for the thefts I actually committed. It’s very hard to explain this properly without legal support so please do forgive me. Lastly, I would like to make the Court aware that I would have been scared to plead not guilty as I would have been afraid of receiving a longer sentence for trying to explain what I did."
[8]The clear inference from that is that the applicant was not properly advised by his lawyers, that they made mistakes which he has been obliged to sort out, and that he should have been advised that it was at least arguable that the robbery counts would not succeed because of the potential absence of evidence as to violence or the threat of violence.[9]We have now seen what is said by his counsel and solicitors. In particular, there is a very useful note prepared by Ms Chloe Ashley of No 5 Chambers dealing with a conference that she had with the applicant on 17 May 2024 prior to the PTPH. From her attendance note, it is clear that Ms Ashley firmly advised the applicant against pleading guilty to robbery because of the arguable absence of violence or the threat of violence. However, as the note makes plain, the applicant insisted that he wanted to plead guilty to all the charges on the indictment. So despite counsel's advice, that is what happened. Discussion and Conclusion[10]In our view, the applicant's belated decision to waive privilege has helped to clarify the issue identified by the single judge. The information from his previous solicitors, and in particular his previous counsel, makes plain that, in our view, the applicant was properly advised throughout. He was advised not to plead guilty to the robbery of offences because it was at least arguable that the threat of violence was missing. He overrode that advice, as he was entitled to do, and pleaded guilty to all the charges.[11]Furthermore, although the applicant had the benefit of a psychiatric report on which he relied at the sentencing hearing, there was never any suggestion that the applicant was not fit to plead or give instructions to his counsel. The report makes no mention of any suggestion to that effect, and it has never been a point advanced on behalf of the applicant.[12]In our view, these considerations mean that the applicant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and the convictions must therefore be regarded as safe. After all, the applicant knew better than anybody else what he had done. He had been properly advised throughout as to the state of the evidence, and he deliberately chose to plead guilty.[13]We should make three final observations. First, whilst we understand why counsel advised as she did, we consider that, if there had been a trial on these issues, it is more likely than not that the applicant would have been convicted on the robbery counts in any event. That is because the statements of the individual complainants indicate that, as a result of his conduct, they each felt physically intimidated. In that way the element of violence or, in this case, the threat necessary for a robbery conviction, would probably have been made out each time.[14]Secondly, the sentence imposed for the robberies was at the very low end of the applicable scale. That indicated that the court saw the use or threat of force in this case as minimal. That in turn means that the applicant would not have received very much less if he had pleaded guilty to three thefts rather than three robberies.[15]Finally, we note that the applicant has made much throughout these applications of his lack of legal support, and that his current predicament arose because his lawyers made mistakes and should have made "a more appropriate decision". Now that the relevant waiver of privilege has been granted and the contemporaneous advice provided, it can be seen that that criticism, which lies at the heart of this renewed application, is fundamentally untrue. He received appropriate advice at all times.[16]For all these reasons, although we grant the extension of time of 19 days in which to renew this application, we refuse this renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. 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