FOUR men convicted of violent disorder during the Burnley riots today faced a delay in their appeal to have "excessive" sentences reduced.

Judges presiding over the case at London's Appeal Court adjourned the case yesterday while they deliberate over whether they wish to hear further argument before delivering their judgement.

Tariq Saddique, 28, Mohammed Bashir, 23, Asif Khan, 25, and Abdul Rahim Kayani, 19, were sentenced for violent disorder after charging a police line during "mayhem" sparked by white racist attacks in June 2001.

The four were cleared of further violent disorder charges which alleged that the group deliberately sought to engage with whites marauding through the Daneshouse district of Burnley.

Saddique was also found guilty of possessing an offensive weapon in the shape of a cricket bat, while Khan was convicted of carrying a sword.

Saddique, of Azalea Road, Blackburn, was jailed for three years; Bashir, of Forrest Road, Burnley, received a 30-month sentence; Khan, of Crankshaw Street, Burnley, got two years; and Kayani, of Brougham Street, Burnley, received an 18-month term. Kayani had pleaded guilty to one charge of violent disorder, the other three were convicted by the jury.

The four are challenging the sentences passed, with Khan and Bashir also seeking permission to appeal against their convictions.

Earlier in the hearing, Bashir's counsel Matthew Ryder challenged the safety of his client's conviction and said his action during the disturbances in June 2001 were motivated solely by a desire to "defend the community" and keep white racist intruders at bay.

Mr Ryder said Bashir's actions were misunderstood. His role in the charge, he argued, was lawful because "he intended to go past the police in the genuine belief that the police were unable to control the racists."

The barrister told the court: "He accepted participation but ran the general defence that it was a lawfully justified thing to do.

"He was there to defend the area."

Mr Ryder challenged Bashir's conviction on grounds that the trial judge gave flawed directions to the jury on the crucial issue of "joint enterprise" -- the extent to which he participated in criminal acts on the day.

The judges will decide whether to hear further evidence tomorrow.

(Proceeding)