R v Hamoda Alizarif Ebrahim

When sentencing multiple offences, consecutive terms may be appropriate where the offending occurred on separate occasions and involved separate victims. The totality principle nevertheless requires the aggregate sentence to remain proportionate to the offending considered as a whole. Aggravating features do not automatically justify a departure beyond the applicable sentencing-guideline range. An appellate court may find a sentence manifestly excessive where individual terms exceed the guideline range without sufficient justification or the aggregate term is disproportionate. The proper approach is to reassess each count, apply any guilty-plea reduction, and ensure that the resulting total reflects the overall criminality.

The appellant was sentenced by the Inner London Crown Court for three sexual assaults committed against different women on public transport. The sentences were 16, 24 and 28 weeks' imprisonment, ordered to run consecutively, producing a total sentence of 68 weeks.

With permission, he appealed against sentence on the grounds that the aggravating features did not justify sentences beyond the guideline range, that insufficient effect had been given to totality, and that the sentence for the third offence was excessive compared with the second. The central issue was whether the individual sentences and the aggregate sentence were manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentences of 16, 24 and 28 weeks were quashed and replaced by consecutive sentences of 11, 12 and 12 weeks respectively, giving a total of 35 weeks' imprisonment.
2. The sentencing judge had identified relevant aggravating features, including offending while on licence, targeting lone women, planning, offending on public transport, the vulnerability and continuing impact on the victims, and the commission of two offences while on bail. Limited mitigation and guilty pleas were also taken into account.
3. Nevertheless, the aggravating features relating to the second and third offences were insufficient to take those offences outside the applicable sentencing range and beyond its maximum of 26 weeks before credit for guilty pleas.
4. The judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences because the offences occurred on separate occasions and involved three separate victims. The totality principle still required the overall sentence to be proportionate to the offending viewed as a whole. The resulting total of 68 weeks was disproportionate and therefore manifestly excessive.
5. Having reassessed the criminality, the court considered that sentences before credit for guilty pleas of approximately 14 weeks for count 1 and 16 weeks for each of counts 2 and 3 were appropriate. Applying a 20 per cent reduction for the guilty pleas produced sentences of 11, 12 and 12 weeks.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentences imposed below were quashed and substituted with consecutive terms of 11, 12 and 12 weeks.
• Inner London Crown Court: On 25 January 2024, imposed consecutive sentences of 16, 24 and 28 weeks' imprisonment for three sexual assaults, totalling 68 weeks.