Bukhari, R v

Where there is no definitive sentencing guideline for false imprisonment, sentence must reflect the circumstances which determine its seriousness. Relevant matters include the number and conduct of those involved, restraint, violence, threats, use of a weapon, planning and the duration of detention.

Serious threats and group intimidation may require immediate custody despite substantial personal mitigation, guilty pleas and a sentence length which could otherwise permit suspension. Mitigation must nevertheless be given adequate weight when fixing the sentence before credit for plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Croydon to false imprisonment, threats to kill and common assault. He and a group of construction workers had confronted an estate agent over the return of a housing deposit. The complainant was prevented from leaving, taken into a back office and subjected to threats and some violence.

On 24 May 2017, the appellant received 32 months’ imprisonment for false imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences. He appealed, with the Single Judge’s leave, on the basis that the sentence did not sufficiently reflect the extensive mitigation. The central issue was whether the notional sentence before credit for guilty pleas was excessive.

1. The court allowed the sentence appeal. It quashed the 32-month sentence for false imprisonment and substituted 24 months’ imprisonment. The concurrent sentences and other orders remained unchanged.

2. The sentencing judge had properly taken account of the appellant’s substantial mitigation. It included good character, remorse, an offer of compensation, depression, positive references and the difficult circumstances which preceded the offences. A substantial immediate custodial sentence was nevertheless justified.

3. There was no definitive guideline for false imprisonment. The court had regard to the sentencing considerations set out by Treacy LJ in Attorney-General's Reference No 92 of 2014 [2014] EWCA Crim 2713, at [19]. The offending was serious because the complainant was cornered by several aggressive men, restrained in his own office, subjected to violence and grave threats, and threatened with a crowbar. Although the detention was not planned and caused no lasting physical injury, it lasted until police intervention and was not momentary.

4. The court concluded that the notional sentence, after allowing for mitigation but before plea credit, should have been three years rather than the sentence implicit in the judge’s order. After credit for the guilty pleas, 24 months was appropriate. Immediate custody was necessary to achieve proper punishment notwithstanding that a sentence of that length can sometimes be suspended.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2018] EWCA Crim 916, allowed the appellant’s sentence appeal, quashed the 32-month sentence for false imprisonment and substituted 24 months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Croydon — following guilty pleas on 20 February 2017, imposed concurrent sentences on 24 May 2017, the longest being 32 months for false imprisonment.