Zaidi, R v

In sentencing child-cruelty offences arising from a religious ritual, the court must balance personal mitigation and religious motivation against the protection owed to impressionable children. A child’s willingness to participate, the absence of malice, limited injury and parental supervision may mitigate sentence, but do not necessarily prevent the offence from passing the custody threshold. Where a parent permits young children to use bladed instruments despite a clear prohibition by religious leaders, a suspended custodial sentence may properly reflect the seriousness of the conduct.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court sitting at Manchester of two counts of cruelty to a person under 16. He had permitted his sons, aged 15 and 13, to use a zanjeer during the Shia Ashura ritual, despite a ruling by the mosque management that those under 16 should not use it.

The boys willingly participated, having previously done so, and their father supervised them and stopped them when he considered they might cause excessive injury. They sustained cuts to their backs but required no medical treatment. The judge imposed 26 weeks’ imprisonment on each count, suspended for 12 months.

The appellant sought leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that it was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and that the unusual facts did not pass the custody threshold.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court granted leave to appeal but upheld the two concurrent sentences of 26 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.

2. The sentencing judge had properly balanced the substantial mitigation against the seriousness of the offences. The appellant was of exemplary good character, acted from fervent religious belief, bore no malice, supervised the boys, intervened to stop the ritual, and the injuries were not serious. The boys had willingly participated and had done so before.

3. Those matters did not displace the need to protect children. The boys’ willingness did not remove the protection of the law. The appellant had been aware that the mosque elders deprecated participation by children under 16, yet allowed his sons, aged 15 and 13, to use a bladed instrument and thereby injure themselves.

4. In those circumstances, the self-inflicted damage passed the custody threshold. The sentencing tribunal had taken a careful and measured course through the competing considerations, and the selected term was not open to criticism. The suspension of the custodial terms appropriately reflected the mitigating circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
• Crown Court sitting at Manchester: On 27 August 2008 the appellant was convicted of two counts of cruelty to a person under 16. On 24 September 2008 he received 26 weeks’ imprisonment on each count, suspended for 12 months, with consequential orders.