R v Albab Monnan

An offender sentenced as an adult for historic offending committed under the age of 18 must be sentenced by reference to the distinct principles applicable to children. The passage of time does not increase the culpability borne at the time of offending. Custody remains a last resort and, if unavoidable, must be no longer than commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. A contemporary adult guideline may assist as a comparator, but any reduction for youth must not be mechanical and the individual circumstances retain primary importance.

Locking a child complainant in a bedroom may amount to deliberate isolation for the purposes of the relevant sentencing guideline, even where other proposed culpability factors are not made out.

R v Albab Monnan concerned sentence for two historic indecent assaults contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The appellant was 17 when he committed sexual assaults upon a seven-year-old child, but was convicted in 2024 and received concurrent sentences of eight years and six months’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge used the contemporary adult guideline for rape of a child under 13 as a comparator. He rejected severe psychological harm, particular vulnerability and breach of trust, but treated the locking of a bedroom door as deliberate isolation. The appellant appealed on the basis that the wrong guideline category and starting point had been adopted and that insufficient weight had been given to totality, youth and mitigation.

The central issue was the correct approach to sentencing an adult for historic sexual offending committed when the offender was a child.

1. Appeal allowed. The concurrent sentences of eight years and six months were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of five years and four months. All other orders remained unchanged.

2. Following Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281, an offender who was under 18 at the time of offending must be sentenced using the approach applicable to children. A child’s reduced culpability and moral responsibility do not disappear because sentencing occurs many years later. The court should therefore consider the sentence that would have been available and appropriate when the offender was the age at which the offending occurred.

3. A sentence of detention under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 would have been required in this case. The age disparity and the three incidents justified custody. However, none of the Step 1 features in the child sexual offences guideline calling for custody applied. The court emphasised the different considerations governing the sentencing of children and the need to give very great weight to mitigation before any further reduction for youth.

4. The judge had correctly rejected severe harm and particular vulnerability. He was also entitled, having considered Attorney General’s Reference No 32 of 2016, to find that locking the bedroom door was deliberate isolation. The appropriate adult comparator was therefore Category 3A, with a starting point of 10 years and a range of eight to 13 years. There could be no more than three incidents for sentencing purposes.

5. Allowing for the lower maximum under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, mitigation and youth, the appropriate notional adult sentence was 11 years before mitigation. The proper final sentence was five years and four months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted concurrent sentences of five years and four months: [2024] EWCA Crim 1641.

• Crown Court at Isleworth — On 22 February 2024, convicted the appellant of two counts of indecent assault. On 22 March 2024, imposed concurrent sentences of eight years and six months’ imprisonment.