Gulam & Ors, R. v

Comparable sentencing decisions provide guidance but do not confine judicial discretion. On a sentence appeal, intervention is justified only where the sentence is wholly out of line or manifestly excessive. The court must assess gravity and personal mitigation in context. It may give substantial weight to a public servant’s abuse of entrusted financial functions, persistence, loss, attempted loss and recruitment of others. Individual participation remains material. A non-initiating participant’s term may be reduced where it is longer than necessary. A limited variation may also facilitate rehabilitation through employment and education where a home-curfew restriction would otherwise obstruct it.

Three appellants appealed against sentences imposed at Croydon Crown Court in June 2006 for their roles in a fraud on the Department of Work and Pensions. Dinara Begum, an employee entrusted to issue emergency Giro cheques, created fraudulent cheques over almost a year. The actual loss was £98,758 and the failed attempts totalled £141,532.

Begum received 40 months’ imprisonment. Maksud Ahmed, who had not initiated the fraud, received 24 months’ imprisonment for obtaining just under £30,000. Amrud Gulam received nine months’ imprisonment for two cheques totalling £9,900. The central issues were whether their sentences were manifestly excessive and, for Gulam, whether a limited reduction was appropriate to end the practical effect of his home-curfew tagging.

The appeals were allowed in part. Begum’s appeal was dismissed. Ahmed’s sentence was reduced from 24 to 18 months’ imprisonment. Gulam’s sentence was reduced from nine to six months’ imprisonment for the limited purpose identified by the court.

1. Comparable sentencing authorities are guidance, not a straitjacket. The Court of Appeal may interfere only where the sentence is wholly out of line or manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge’s ability to assess each offender alongside the other defendants was a material consideration.
2. Begum’s 40-month sentence was severe and at the top of the permissible range, but not manifestly excessive. She had abused a responsible civil-service role, repeatedly issued forged emergency cheques, caused substantial actual and intended loss, exposed genuine employees to possible suspicion, and drawn otherwise law-abiding people into the fraud. Her difficult personal circumstances, previous good character, cessation before arrest and guilty plea did not make the sentence susceptible to appellate intervention.
3. Ahmed had not initiated the scheme and was not its hub. Although custody was inevitable, 24 months was longer than necessary after allowing for his guilty plea, good character, personal mitigation and lesser role. An 18-month term was appropriate.
4. Gulam’s offence passed the custody threshold despite his strong personal mitigation, given the public source of the funds and the amount taken. Nine months was harsh but not manifestly excessive. The court nevertheless reduced it to six months so that he would no longer remain tagged in October and could work while attending the second year of his college course. It expressed the hope that the Home Office would remove the tag if the reduction did not achieve that result.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2006] EWCA Crim 2320, dismissed Begum’s sentence appeal, reduced Ahmed’s sentence from 24 to 18 months, and reduced Gulam’s sentence from nine to six months for a limited rehabilitative purpose.
• Croydon Crown Court In June 2006, imposed imprisonment terms of 40 months on Begum, 24 months on Ahmed and nine months on Gulam for their roles in the fraud.