R v Abbas Abbass

When sentencing multiple serious sexual offences, totality is assessed against the offending as a whole. A substantial increase to reflect an additional offence is not manifestly excessive merely because it is steep, provided the overall sentence remains proportionate.

In assessing dangerousness, the sentencing judge may consider all material, including trial evidence, the circumstances of the offending and professional probation evidence addressing the statutory criteria. Low or medium actuarial risk scores do not prevent a finding of significant risk. The need for an extended sentence and the length of the licence must be considered separately by reference to public protection.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Cambridge, the applicant was convicted of two rapes contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of that Act. On 16 November 2022, the judge imposed concurrent sentences, including an extended determinate sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment with a six-year licence period under the Sentencing Act 2020. The judge also found the applicant dangerous.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal, challenging the sentence as manifestly excessive, the finding of dangerousness, and the necessity and length of the extended licence. The central issues were whether the sentence offended totality and whether the statutory requirements for dangerousness and public protection were met.

Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The sentence was severe but neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. Sentence and totality. The court accepted that the rapes fell within Category 2A under the Sentencing Council Guideline for Sexual Offences. It disagreed with the description of the conduct as stalking, but upheld the findings of severe psychological harm, a sustained incident and significant planning. A 12-year sentence for a single rape was appropriate. The assault by penetration separately merited 10 years. The concurrent sentences were properly imposed with the rapes as the lead offences. The relevant appellate question was whether the 18-year term was so outside the range of permissible sentences for the offences taken together as to be manifestly excessive. Although the increase was steep, the total sentence remained proportionate to the offending as a whole, including the separate offence and the sinister circumstances surrounding the conduct.
2. Dangerousness. The sentencing judge was well placed to assess the issue after hearing the trial evidence. Under section 229(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020, he could take into account all material before him. This included the probation officer’s professional opinion that the relevant risk existed, the nature and circumstances of the offending, and the applicant’s continued denial of guilt. Actuarial assessments showing only medium risk of a sexually motivated contact offence or low general reoffending risk within two years did not prevent a finding of significant risk of further specified offences causing serious harm.
3. Evidence of remarks. The judge was entitled to assess and take into account the victim’s evidence about remarks attributed to the applicant. However, the finding of dangerousness was independently justified without relying on those remarks.
4. Extended sentence. The judge separately considered whether an extended sentence was necessary for public protection and what licence period was required. The court upheld the conclusion that a six-year extended licence was necessary.
5. Technical clarification. The sentences on counts 1 and 2 were to be recorded as 18 years’ imprisonment with a six-year extended licence period. Count 3 carried a standard 10-year custodial sentence. All sentences remained concurrent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed application for leave granted; appeal dismissed. The sentence was technically clarified so that the extended sentence applied to counts 1 and 2, while count 3 carried a standard sentence.
• Crown Court at Cambridge — on 16 November 2022, imposed concurrent sentences including an 18-year extended determinate sentence with a six-year licence period.