Zaman & Ors, R. v

In sentencing sexual offences committed by multiple offenders, a judge need not disentangle each offender’s precise causal contribution to severe psychological harm. The judge must, however, be satisfied that the offender’s conduct was a material or significant contributory cause of that harm.

Under the applicable sentencing guideline, the extreme nature of a category 2 harm factor, or the extreme combined impact of such factors, may properly place offending in category 1. Severe psychological harm and a victim’s obvious, extreme vulnerability may justify that conclusion. The sentencing assessment remains evaluative and will not be disturbed merely because the harm was cumulatively caused by others as well.

Six men were convicted in two trials at Leeds Crown Court arising from serious sexual exploitation and abuse of two vulnerable girls. The principal victim, A, was a damaged and exceptionally vulnerable child who had been sexually abused by a number of men.

Zaman and Ramzan renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and appealed against sentence. Haider Ali and Hedar Ali appealed against sentence. Butt sought leave to appeal against sentence, and Mahmood sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence.

The central sentencing issue was whether the judge had wrongly treated the harm caused by each offender as category 1, notwithstanding that the severe psychological harm to A was cumulative. The conviction issue concerned the effect of interviews given by a co-defendant who was later acquitted on a submission of no case to answer.

1. All appeals were dismissed and all renewed applications for leave were refused. Mahmood’s renewed application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence was also refused.

2. The convictions of Zaman and Ramzan were safe. The jury had been told when the co-defendant’s police interviews were read that they were evidence only against that co-defendant. The interview material was removed from the jury bundle, and the judge repeated in the summing-up that it was wholly irrelevant to the charges remaining for decision. Those clear directions adequately removed any possible prejudice.

3. In assessing harm under the definitive guideline, the sentencing judge was not required to disaggregate the precise contribution of each offender to A’s severe psychological harm. The necessary question was whether the particular offender’s conduct was a material or significant contributory cause of that harm. The judge had made that assessment and had properly recognised that the appellants were contributors, rather than the sole cause, of A’s lasting damage.

4. The offending could properly be placed in category 1A. A’s severe psychological harm, her extreme and obvious vulnerability, the grooming behaviour, and the use or availability of drink and drugs created an extreme combined impact. The sentencing judge’s categorisation was an evaluative judgment and disclosed no error.

5. The individual challenges also failed. The concurrent and consecutive terms were not manifestly excessive when assessed for totality. The judge’s promptly corrected error about whether Ramzan had been on licence gave no basis for concluding that it affected sentence. Hedar Ali’s trafficking offences were properly elevated to culpability category A in light of the aggravating features.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2019] EWCA Crim 499, dismissed the sentence appeals of Zaman, Ramzan, Haider Ali and Hedar Ali; refused the renewed conviction applications of Zaman and Ramzan; refused Butt’s application for leave to appeal against sentence; and refused Mahmood’s extension-of-time application and application for leave.
• Crown Court at Leeds: The applicants and appellants were convicted in two trials before His Honour Judge Marson in April and May 2016 and were sentenced following those trials.