Ahmed, R v

In assessing whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, the court may substantially increase the guideline starting point where several features establish greater harm and higher culpability. A planned group attack using a potentially lethal weapon, with serious injuries and a leading role by the offender, justified such increases.

A guilty-plea reduction may properly be limited to 20 per cent where the offender had not previously indicated an intention to admit the alternative offences and had served a defence statement denying responsibility. A determinate sentence may address public risk and reflect separate offences of serious violence while still giving due weight to personal mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Preston to two counts of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Recorder imposed concurrent terms of 11 years’ detention in a young offender institution.

He appealed, with the single judge’s leave, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient weight had been given to his youth, previous good character, caring responsibilities, remorse and progress in custody. He also challenged the Recorder’s 20 per cent reduction for his guilty pleas. The issue was whether the overall sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent sentence of 11 years’ detention in a young offender institution was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The Recorder was entitled to characterise the offences as well-planned, brutal and sustained attacks on two unarmed victims. The appellant armed himself with a machete, assembled a group, took a leading role and caused serious injuries. Those features justified a substantial increase above the applicable guideline starting points.

3. The offence against Arif was properly treated as category 1. Greater harm arose from the seriousness of the injuries and the sustained assault. Higher culpability arose from significant premeditation, use of the machete and the appellant’s leading role. The offence against Yasser was properly treated as category 2, but the multiple higher-culpability factors likewise justified a substantial uplift.

4. The Recorder correctly allowed only a 20 per cent reduction for the guilty pleas. Although alternative counts were added shortly before the pleas, the appellant had not earlier indicated a willingness to plead guilty to them. He had pleaded not guilty, a trial had been fixed, and a defence statement denied responsibility for the injuries.

5. The effective post-trial sentence would have been 13 years and nine months. The final sentence adequately reflected the appellant’s mitigation while addressing the risk of serious harm to the public and the commission of two separate violent offences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2020] EWCA Crim 1299, dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal.

• Crown Court at Preston: On 13 February 2020, imposed concurrent terms of 11 years’ detention in a young offender institution for two offences of wounding with intent.