Alam, R. v

For offences committed when section 85 applied, an extended sentence for a violent offence required a custodial term of at least four years. The exception for sexual offences did not extend to controlling a prostitute for gain.

Separate sentences may properly mark distinct offences within one course of criminal conduct. However, sentences for offences integral to that course should be concurrent where consecutive terms would overstate the overall criminality. An extended sentence should not generally be imposed consecutively to other sentences.

R v Alam and Watson concerned two appeals against sentences imposed in the Crown Court at Bolton following convictions for blackmail, robbery, false imprisonment, controlling a prostitute for gain and, in Alam’s case, rape.

Alam received consecutive extended sentences and was ordered to serve 491 days remaining on an earlier sentence. Watson received consecutive extended sentences. Both challenged the length and structure of their sentences; Alam also challenged the extension period.

The central issues were whether the extended sentences were lawfully available under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 85, and whether the consecutive terms produced excessive total sentences.

1. The appeals were allowed to the extent stated. The court quashed the original sentences and substituted reduced sentences.

2. Under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, an extended sentence for a violent offence could not have a custodial term below four years. That restriction did not apply to sexual offences, but controlling a prostitute for gain was not a sexual offence for this purpose. Alam’s extended sentences for false imprisonment, controlling a prostitute for gain and blackmail were therefore unavailable because their custodial terms were below four years. Only the rape sentence could lawfully be an extended sentence.

3. The court substituted an extended sentence of 13 years for Alam’s rape conviction, comprising eight years’ custody and a five-year extension period. The remaining sentences were made concurrent with it. The blackmail and controlling-prostitution offences were integral to the same course of criminal activity as the false imprisonment and rape, so their terms should not have increased the total sentence. The court also followed the guidance in Pepper [2005] EWCA Crim 1181 and Nelson [2001] EWCA Crim 2264 that an extended sentence should not generally be consecutive to other sentences. The order requiring Alam to serve the remaining 491 days of his earlier sentence was upheld.

4. Watson’s separate episodes of offending justified some consecutive terms, but her first custodial sentence, Alam’s influence over her and the overall proportionality of the punishment required reduction. Her robbery term was reduced and the controlling-prostitution term made concurrent with the false-imprisonment term. No extended sentence was available. Her substituted total sentence was four years and three months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed both appeals against sentence to the stated extent and substituted reduced sentences.
• Crown Court at Bolton: Following trial before HHJ Morris and a jury, the appellants were convicted on 19 September 2005 and sentenced on 5 December 2005.