R v Sadi-Ul-Huqq Sadi

A custodial sentence within the applicable guideline range will not be manifestly excessive where the sentencing judge correctly identifies culpability and aggravating factors, and makes a proper allowance for mitigation. A community order is not required where the custody threshold is passed. Suspension is a separate assessment and may properly be refused where the seriousness of the offending requires immediate custody, particularly where prompt admissions, an early guilty plea and remorse are absent. The high prison population does not itself justify suspension without independent exceptional factors, having regard also to the sentence length.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Birmingham on 15 April 2023 of sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 7 November 2023, he received 30 months’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge placed the offence in category A2 of the relevant sentencing guidelines. She identified abuse of trust, a significant age disparity and grooming behaviour. She reduced the three-year starting point to reflect mitigation, but declined to suspend the sentence.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application. He contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, should have been at the bottom of the range, and should have been suspended or replaced by a community order. The central issue was whether the immediate 30-month sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. A sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
2. The sentencing judge was correct to place the offence in category A2, with a starting point of three years’ imprisonment. There were three distinct culpability-A features: abuse of trust, a significant age disparity and grooming behaviour. The offending also occurred in the complainant’s home, where the applicant had been trusted by both her and her mother. That was an aggravating factor capable of increasing the sentence above the starting point.
3. The judge properly allowed for mitigation, including the absence of previous convictions and the applicant’s previous good character. She reduced the starting point by six months. There was no justification for a further reduction to the two-year bottom of the guideline range.
4. The judge was entitled to find that the custody threshold was passed and that immediate custody was required. A possible basis for suspension, namely frank early admissions, an early guilty plea and remorse, was absent. Even if the sentence had been reduced to two years, R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 did not justify suspension. There were no independent exceptional factors and the length of imprisonment also told against suspension.
5. Accordingly, neither the length of the sentence nor the refusal to suspend it was arguably wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, following the single judge’s refusal of leave.
• Crown Court at Birmingham — The applicant was convicted on 15 April 2023 of an offence contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and was sentenced on 7 November 2023 to 30 months’ imprisonment.