R v Nazir Ahmed & Ors

An adult sentenced for an offence committed when under 18 must be sentenced by reference to the Children guideline, regardless of the time elapsed since the offending, unless following it would be contrary to the interests of justice. The sentence likely to have been imposed when the offender was a child is the starting point. The court must consider any age-specific limit on custody. If no custody was legally available then, none may be imposed later. If custody was available, the historical maximum may be exceeded only for good reason; attaining adulthood is not, by itself, sufficient. Later events may justify adjustment where they establish greater culpability or harm.

Five conjoined applications and appeals concerned Nazir Ahmed, David Stansfield, Steven Priestley, RW and Peter Hodgkinson, who were adults when sentenced for historical sexual offences committed between childhood and early adulthood. The appeals arose from sentencing decisions in the Crown Courts at Sheffield, Bradford and Nottingham. The court was asked to resolve an asserted tension between the approaches in R v H (J) [2011] EWCA Crim 2753, R v Forbes and others [2016] EWCA Crim 1388 and R v Limon [2022] EWCA Crim 39. The central issue was how the Children guideline, historical custodial maxima and the likely sentence at the time of offending should affect the sentence imposed on an adult.

The court allowed the appeals to varying extents and varied all five sentences. In Priestley, the appeal was dismissed in relation to counts 5 to 11.

1. General approach. Section 59(1) of the Sentencing Code requires the Children guideline to be followed where the offending occurred under 18, unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. This remains so regardless of the offender’s age at conviction or the passage of time. The court distinguished the approach in R v H (J) [2011] EWCA Crim 2753 and declined to follow R v Forbes and others [2016] EWCA Crim 1388 insofar as they treated historical child offending like historical adult offending. The approach in R v Limon [2022] EWCA Crim 39 was applied.
2. Starting point and limits. The court must identify the maximum and types of custody available to the offender at or shortly after the offending and take the likely sentence at that time as the starting point. If no custody was legally available, no custodial sentence may later be imposed. If custody was available, the court is not necessarily bound by the child maximum, but may exceed it only for good reason. The court doubted R v Forbes and others [2016] EWCA Crim 1388 on that latter point, although the issue was not finally decided.
3. Adjustment of the starting point. The starting point is not necessarily the end point. Subsequent evidence may show greater or lesser culpability, a continuing course of conduct or greater harm. The court must also have regard to the adult sentencing purposes in section 57 of the Sentencing Code. A sentence of Borstal training could properly be reflected by up to four years’ imprisonment, representing detention and supervision with regard to current release provisions.
4. Individual cases. Ahmed’s total sentence was reduced to two years six months. Stansfield’s lead sentence was reduced to a special custodial sentence of 11 years with a further one-year licence period; the court also held that violence could not be counted twice and that ad hoc child-sitting did not constitute abuse of trust. Priestley’s sentences on counts 1 to 4 were reduced, while the appeal concerning counts 5 to 11 was dismissed. RW’s total sentence was reduced to 18 months. Hodgkinson’s sentence was reduced to four years’ custody with a two-year extended licence; the later two-thirds custody provision did not apply because the varied sentence took effect from the original sentencing date.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The conjoined applications and appeals were heard by a Special Court. Leave and extensions of time were granted where required. The court varied the sentences as set out in the judgment.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: Sentencing decisions concerning Ahmed, Stansfield and Hodgkinson were appealed or referred to the Court of Appeal.
• Crown Court at Bradford: Priestley was sentenced for historical sexual offences. His appeal succeeded on counts 1 to 4 but failed on counts 5 to 11.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: RW’s sentence for historical sexual offences was appealed and substantially reduced.