REGINA v ALI

On a reference under Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is not unduly lenient merely because the appellate court considers it lenient. Intervention is unwarranted where the sentencing judge has conscientiously addressed the material facts and mitigation, has not omitted a relevant factor, and has imposed a sentence which a reasonable judge could reach.

In an appropriate case, the judge may select and uplift lead offences to reflect the overall criminality. Concurrent sentences are permissible where that structure adequately reflects the totality of the offending.

The offender was convicted after an 18-day trial of 13 offences of child cruelty, sexual offending against her daughter, and making indecent photographs of a child. The conduct extended over many years and involved coercive control, isolation, sexual abuse, and serious psychological harm.

The sentencing judge imposed a total of nine years’ imprisonment, together with a restraining order and forfeiture orders. The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that it failed to reflect the duration, gravity and totality of the offending. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient.

1. The application was refused. Although the nine-year sentence was lenient, it was not unduly lenient so as to justify intervention under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

2. The court accepted that the offender had caused significant psychological harm over a long period. It also held that the sentencing judge, having heard the evidence and considered the expert reports, was entitled to assess the offender as a complex individual rather than rely solely on the picture presented by the indictment.

3. The sentencing judge had conscientiously considered the details of the case, identified the relevant aggravating factors and sufficiently explained the sentence. The court was not satisfied that any relevant factor had been omitted or that the resulting sentence was one which no reasonable judge could impose.

4. There was no error in the sentencing structure. The judge was entitled to select lead sexual offences, increase their sentences to reflect aggravating features and the other offending, and impose concurrent sentences. Consecutive sentences were not required as a matter of principle.

5. The nine-year sentence was confirmed, subject to credit of 25 days for qualifying curfew, making the term nine years less 25 days. The restraining order was to be recorded as imposed under section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020, rather than under the repealed section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was refused. The sentence was confirmed subject to a 25-day qualifying-curfew credit and correction of the statutory basis for the restraining order.
• Sentencing court: Following conviction after trial on 4 October 2021, the offender received a total sentence of nine years’ imprisonment, an indefinite restraining order and forfeiture orders. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.