R v Mohammed Rasoul

A sentencing appeal may succeed on the form of custody even where the sentence length is not manifestly excessive. In assessing excessiveness, the appellate court may consider whether the sentence remains within the guideline range for a single offence and whether the sentencing judge properly considered youth, mitigation, criminal record, persistent offending and the period of offending. A reduced credit for guilty pleas may be justified where the offender knew what he had been arrested for and what was alleged in court. For an offender aged 20 at sentence, custodial terms should be expressed as detention in a young offender institution rather than imprisonment. The correction need not alter the length of the sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty to several drug-supply offences, possessing criminal property, possessing a bladed article, possessing a flick knife and assaulting emergency workers. The Crown Court at Wood Green imposed an overall sentence of five years and three months' imprisonment.

A single judge refused leave to appeal. The applicant renewed his application, challenging the alleged excessiveness of the drug sentences, the treatment of his youth and mitigation, and the credit allowed for guilty pleas. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the custodial terms were correctly expressed given the applicant's age.

The court granted the two-day extension of time and allowed the appeal on a limited basis.

1. Drug sentences. The court entirely agreed with the single judge that there was no arguable basis for saying that the sentence of 18 months before credit for plea was manifestly excessive. The overall starting point for the drug offences remained within the bracket applicable to a single offence. The sentencing judge had considered the applicant's youth, remorse, mitigation, significant criminal record, persistent offending, the period over which the offences were committed and the seriousness of his role in street dealing.
2. Credit for guilty pleas. There was no arguable complaint about allowing only 25 per cent credit for the offences committed in April 2022. The relevant charges correctly identified the offences as having been committed on the previous day. The applicant knew what he had been arrested for and what was being alleged in court. The fact that full credit had been allowed for other offences did not require the same credit in these circumstances.
3. Form of custody. Because the applicant was aged 20 when sentenced, the custodial sentences should have been expressed as detention in a young offender institution rather than imprisonment. The court therefore substituted sentences of detention in a young offender institution for terms of the same length. The overall custodial term remained five years and three months.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2023] EWCA Crim 1267, the court granted a short extension of time and allowed the appeal solely to substitute detention in a young offender institution for terms expressed as imprisonment.
2. Single judge. Refused leave to appeal, holding that the sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive and that the credit for guilty pleas was not sustainably challengeable.
3. Crown Court at Wood Green. Imposed an overall sentence of five years and three months' imprisonment on 1 November 2022.