Najeeb & Ors, R. v

Sentencing for riot must reflect both the exceptional gravity of the disorder and each offender’s individual part in it. Relevant matters include the scale, duration, targets and consequences of the violence, the degree of organisation or premeditation, the offender’s duration of participation and the acts committed.

The origins of a riot may be relevant mitigation. They may carry limited weight once prolonged and grave violence has followed, but they are not wholly irrelevant. A guilty-plea reduction may be materially below one third where video or other evidence makes conviction overwhelmingly likely. On appeal, the question remains whether the individual sentence was manifestly excessive.

Fifteen defendants challenged sentences imposed by three judges at Bradford Crown Court after their participation in disorder in Bradford on 7 and 8 July 2001. Most had pleaded guilty to riot. Maskin had pleaded guilty to violent disorder.

The disorder lasted about 12 hours. It involved extensive attacks on police, missiles including petrol bombs, arson, barricades, looting and very substantial damage. More than 300 police officers were injured. The appellants’ respective conduct ranged from brief missile throwing to sustained and dangerous participation, including throwing petrol bombs and gas cylinders.

The common issue was whether the sentences, principally between four and six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, were manifestly excessive in light of the riot’s origins, the offenders’ roles, guilty pleas and personal mitigation.

1. Appeals allowed in part. The court allowed the sentence appeals of Najeeb and Qazi, and granted permission and allowed the sentence challenges of Maskin and Shazad Ali. It substituted sentences of three years, two years, two years and three years respectively. The remaining appeals or renewed applications were dismissed or refused.

2. The riot was of the utmost gravity. It involved many hundreds of participants, lasted about 12 hours, was directed at police officers, caused injuries and very substantial damage, and became increasingly organised and premeditated. Deterrent sentences were therefore necessary, and previous good character and personal mitigation carried comparatively limited weight.

3. The court accepted that the riot was not initially premeditated and that anxiety within the Asian community, including fear of racist violence, formed part of its origins. Judge Gullick had been wrong if his statement that he was unconcerned with the origins of the prolonged violence meant that they were entirely irrelevant. Their significance could nevertheless be outweighed by the sustained riot that followed.

4. The court treated Keys 8 Cr App R(S) 444 cautiously. It gave useful guidance, but was not a guideline authority in the modern sense and did not establish comprehensive sentencing bands. For this riot, offenders who were present for a significant time and repeatedly threw missiles required starting points substantially above two years.

5. Credit for a guilty plea was not necessarily one third. The exceptionally clear video evidence meant that many defendants had negligible prospects of acquittal, so a smaller reduction could properly be allowed. Each sentence had to be tested against the offender’s own duration of involvement and conduct.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeals of Najeeb and Qazi and the renewed sentence challenges of Maskin and Shazad Ali. It reduced their sentences. It dismissed the appeals of Mahmood and Raja and refused the other renewed applications.

• Bradford Crown Court: Three judges had imposed sentences after guilty pleas arising from the Bradford disorder of 7 and 8 July 2001.