R v Imran Michael Saddiq

A sole carer of young children is not immune from immediate custody. However, the sentencing court must consider and weigh the harmful impact on the children when deciding whether immediate custody is proportionate and whether a custodial term should be suspended. A failure to address exceptional personal mitigation and caring responsibilities may justify appellate intervention. Where the sentencing remarks give no clear indication that those matters were considered, the appellate court may determine suspension afresh.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Bradford to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. During a group assault outside a bar, he initiated contact with the victim and delivered two non-forceful kicks to the victim’s body. The other offenders delivered the kicks causing the serious injuries.

He was sentenced to 20 months’ immediate custody. He appealed against sentence, relying on his lesser role, lack of previous convictions, remorse, low risk of reoffending, and exceptional personal mitigation. He was the sole carer of two young sons after their mother’s death. The central issue was whether immediate custody, rather than a suspended sentence, was proportionate in light of those responsibilities.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of varying the sentence. The offence plainly crossed the custody threshold. The judge was entitled to categorise it as a category B2 assault under the Sentencing Council guideline, with a two-year starting point.

2. The appellant nevertheless had a lesser role than his co-offenders. Although he initiated the confrontation, the co-offenders threw the victim down and inflicted the kicks causing the significant injuries. His own two kicks were to the body, not the head or face, and were not forceful.

3. The sentencing remarks did not show that the judge had considered the appellant’s exceptional personal mitigation or his position as sole carer for two young children following their mother’s death. The difference between his notional sentence and those of the principal offenders did not clearly demonstrate that additional mitigation had been allowed.

4. A sole carer is not thereby protected from immediate custody. However, the significant harmful effect of custody on young children must be considered when assessing proportionality and when deciding whether suspension is appropriate under the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline. In the absence of a clear indication that the judge had done so, the Court considered suspension afresh.

5. Taking account of the appellant’s lesser role, absence of convictions, low risk of reoffending, good rehabilitation prospects, remorse and the serious impact on his children, a 15-month sentence was justified. It was suspended for two years, with a 20-day rehabilitation activity requirement. No further requirements were imposed because of time already served.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal to the extent of varying the sentence: [2022] EWCA Crim 1341.
• Crown Court at Bradford On 8 July 2022, HHJ Nadim imposed 20 months’ immediate custody following the appellant’s guilty plea.