R v Abdul Raheem Howe

An appellate court will not interfere with an extended sentence where the sentencing judge was entitled to find the offender dangerous and the evidence supports a real continuing risk at release. Persistent denial of guilt, absence of remorse or insight, and unwillingness to engage with offending behaviour may support that assessment.

A lengthy extended licence period is not manifestly excessive merely because it is at the upper end of the available range. The question is whether it was within the sentencing judge’s proper discretion having regard to the nature of the risk and the potential public harm.

The sentence pronounced in open court is determinative. A victim surcharge entered only in the written record must be removed if it was not pronounced.

The applicant renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence after a single judge had refused both applications. A short extension of time was required and granted.

He had been convicted on fifteen counts, including seven counts of rape, two counts of kidnap, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice. The longest concurrent sentences were extended sentences of 26 years and 8 months, comprising 20 years and 8 months’ custody and a six-year extended licence period.

The challenges concerned the safety of the convictions, the length and extended nature of the sentence, the finding of dangerousness, and the length of the extended licence. The court also considered an apparent victim surcharge recorded in the sentencing documentation.

1. The court granted a short extension of time but dismissed both renewed applications for leave to appeal. It agreed with the single judge’s reasons for rejecting each of the four conviction grounds. The submissions advanced on the applicant’s behalf did not disclose any basis to challenge the convictions.

2. The custodial term was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge was entitled to reach her conclusions on the evidence and had given adequate weight to the applicant’s youth and limited personal mitigation.

3. The challenge to dangerousness was hopeless. The brutal sexual offending, combined with the absence of remorse or insight recorded in the pre-sentence report, entitled the judge to find that the applicant was dangerous.

4. An extended sentence, including an extended licence, was necessary. The applicant continued to deny guilt and showed no interest in engaging with offending behaviour. There was therefore a real risk that his dangerousness would remain at its existing level when the lengthy custodial term ended. Although a six-year licence period was towards the long end, it was within the judge’s proper discretion given the risk posed and the potential harm to the public.

5. The court directed amendment of the sentencing record. The recorded victim surcharge of £191 had not been pronounced by the judge. The judgment pronounced in open court was determinative, so the surcharge was to be removed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 1224.
• Single judge — refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
• Trial court — convicted the applicant and imposed concurrent sentences, including extended sentences for the rape counts. The court is not identified in the judgment.