R v Hasan Gulzar

A developmental or neurological condition does not automatically reduce culpability. The court must identify a sufficient connection between the condition and the offending behaviour and analyse all relevant circumstances and materials. ADHD and autism spectrum condition may be relevant where offending occurs during conflict, but mitigation depends on evidence showing how the condition affected the particular conduct. Where reports cannot explain why weapons were carried for use as weapons, only modest mitigation may be justified. Age, relative immaturity and developmental disorders must receive adequate weight in sentencing. Failure to do so may render a sentence manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Aylesbury to possessing a bladed article and threatening another with a bladed article, contrary to sections 139 and 139 AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He received a total sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment. The appeal, brought with leave of the single judge, challenged the sentence as manifestly excessive. The appellant relied on his age, relative immaturity, guilty pleas, delay, limited previous record and neuro-developmental conditions, including ADHD and autism spectrum condition. The central issue was whether sufficient allowance had been made for those mitigating factors.

The appeal was allowed in part. The sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was quashed and replaced by a sentence of 22 months. The other sentences remained undisturbed, reducing the total term from 40 months to 34 months.

1. The aggravating features of the offence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 justified a sentence above the 18-month starting point before mitigation. The delay in dealing with that offence carried little weight because the appellant later committed further offences.
2. The assault was serious. It involved two stabbings, one inflicted from behind, and was aggravated by the concurrent offence under section 139 AA, offending while on bail and subject to a community order, and the appellant’s escalating record of violence. Those matters required a substantial uplift from the 30-month starting point.
3. The sentencing guideline required a sufficient connection between a disorder and the offending behaviour before culpability could be reduced. The assessment required careful analysis of all the circumstances and relevant material. The court accepted that ADHD and autism spectrum condition could be relevant to culpability where conflict arose. However, neither pre-sentence report, and no expert evidence, explained why the appellant had carried the knife or scissors as weapons. The disorders therefore justified only a modest reduction.
4. The sentencing judge had considered the appellant’s age, immaturity and background but had not made sufficient allowance for the mitigating circumstances. The resulting sentence for the assault was manifestly excessive and required a six-month reduction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2023] EWCA Crim 630, the appeal was allowed to the limited extent that the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was reduced from 28 to 22 months.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury — The appellant pleaded guilty to the offences and was sentenced to a total of 40 months’ imprisonment on 18 November 2022.