R v Ibrahim Sarjo

The custody threshold does not make immediate custody automatic. The sentencing court must still decide whether appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate detention, applying the Sentencing Council’s guidance on suspension. Relevant considerations include the offender’s risk, compliance history, rehabilitation prospects, personal mitigation and the impact of immediate custody. In exceptional circumstances, a custodial sentence may properly be suspended where the offender is young, of good character, has strong rehabilitation prospects and has used excessive force in self-defence after being subjected to serious provocation.

The appellant, aged 18 at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Liverpool to two offences of unlawful wounding and possessing a knife. The offences were contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. On 14 October 2022, he received an aggregate sentence of 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution, concurrent sentences being imposed. He challenged only the refusal to suspend the sentence, raising the application of the Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guidelines for the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.

The appeal was allowed in part. The length of the 18-month sentence was not challenged, but the court held that it should have been suspended.

1. The guideline identifies circumstances pointing against suspension, including public risk, a need for immediate custody to achieve appropriate punishment and poor compliance with court orders. It also identifies circumstances supporting suspension, including a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation and a significant harmful impact from immediate custody.
2. The sentencing judge accepted that the appellant was low risk, had no convictions, was likely to comply with an order, had a real prospect of rehabilitation, had strong personal mitigation, a supportive family and employment. The judge nevertheless concluded that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody.
3. That conclusion was wrong in the exceptional circumstances. The prosecution accepted that the appellant had taken the knife from a younger person and had not carried it with a reasonable excuse. However, he had been subjected to serious racist abuse, had initially walked away, had been pursued and kicked, and had used the knife with excessive force in self-defence. It was common ground that he had not intended to cause really serious harm. He was also 18, of previous good character and had strong prospects of rehabilitation.
4. The period of detention was suspended for 24 months. A 30-day rehabilitation activity requirement was imposed. No unpaid work requirement was imposed because the appellant had already served the equivalent of nearly four months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in [2022] EWCA Crim 1670, allowed the appeal to the extent of suspending the 18-month detention sentence for 24 months and imposed a 30-day rehabilitation activity requirement.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: sentenced the appellant on 14 October 2022 to an aggregate 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution, with concurrent sentences.