Rahimi, R v

An appellate court should not interfere with a custodial sentence unless it is manifestly excessive. Comparable sentencing decisions may assist the assessment, but they are not guidelines and each case depends on its facts.

A proper sentence must not be reduced to an unduly lenient level merely to avoid collateral immigration consequences. The effect of a deportation notice is instead a matter to be addressed with the Home Office.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. He had approached the mother of a disabled complainant in a rape allegation against his brother, urging her to secure the withdrawal of the allegation. The approach included an offer of money and emotional pressure.

He received 16 months’ imprisonment, reduced from a two-year starting point for his early guilty plea. He appealed against sentence, relying on comparable authorities and on the immigration consequences of a sentence of 12 months or more. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court accepted that the sentencing judge had properly allowed full credit for the early guilty plea, reducing a two-year sentence to 16 months. The offence involved a deliberate and premeditated attempt to persuade the complainant’s family to withdraw a serious rape allegation. Although there was no threat of violence, the appellant offered a bribe and applied emotional blackmail.

3. R v Riley (1990) 12 Cr App R(S) 410 was a useful comparator. Its implied threat of violence made it more serious in one respect, but the underlying allegation in this case was significantly more serious and involved a disabled complainant. The substituted 15-month sentence in Riley supported the conclusion that this sentence was consistent with comparable authority.

4. The authorities were not sentencing guidelines and each turned on its own facts. The sentencing judge had considered the relevant authorities and imposed a sentence within the proper range.

5. The appellant’s possible deportation was relevant background but could not justify substituting an unduly lenient sentence for a proper one. Any challenge to removal was a matter between the appellant and the Home Office.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed: [2011] EWCA Crim 2268.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: The appellant pleaded guilty on 4 July 2011 and was sentenced on 7 July 2011 to 16 months’ imprisonment.