Ako Hussain Pur v R

Sentencing Council guidelines should be construed, interpreted and applied by reference to the facts of the individual case. A guideline range is not an inflexible ceiling. Even without culpability A factors, a sentence above the range may be justified by numerous factors falling just below that level, additional aggravating features and unusual circumstances. Earlier sentencing decisions are of limited assistance because they turn on their own facts. An appellate court should give particular weight to the sentencing judge’s assessment, especially where the judge also tried the case and gave clear reasons.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at Sheffield, the applicant was convicted of assaulting a child under 13 by penetration, contrary to section 6(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He received a seven-year special custodial sentence with a one-year extended licence period under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020. He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence, arguing that the offending fell within category 3B and that, in the absence of culpability A factors, the judge should not have exceeded the guideline range. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge was entitled to sentence above that range.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the case as starting in category 3B, but to move above the guideline range. The absence of culpability A factors did not prevent that course.
2. The judge identified a combination of aggravating features, including the applicant’s position of trust, the offence in the child’s bedroom, planning, grooming-type conduct, the attempt to prevent reporting, a previous sexual conviction and the impact on the child’s father. Additional concerns included the child’s age, the previous exposure conviction being related to children, and non-compliance with notification requirements.
3. The totality of those matters, together with the unusual circumstances and the absence of mitigation, made this a very serious case. The judge gave cogent reasons for imposing a sentence above the range.
4. The authorities relied on by the applicant—R v HB [2003] EWCA Crim 671, R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388 and R v Ivan [2020] EWCA Crim 301—were of limited assistance because sentencing cases turn on their own facts. The Sentencing Council guidelines had to be construed, interpreted and applied.
5. The sentencing judge, who had also been the trial judge, was best placed to assess culpability and aggravating features. His reasoning was clear, and there was no basis for appellate intervention.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2024] EWCA Crim 1191.
2. Crown Court at Sheffield: Following a jury trial, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a seven-year special custodial sentence with a one-year extended licence period.