R v Ibraheem Anwar

A sentence is unduly lenient only where it falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge after considering all relevant factors. Appellate intervention requires clear error, and proper respect must be given to the trial judge’s factual findings and evaluative judgment. A vehicle used to inflict injury will usually be a highly dangerous weapon, but its categorisation depends on culpability and the circumstances in which it became a weapon. Under the current guideline, whether injury is grave is case-specific. Permanent injury is not essential, although transient injury may properly be considered. A lenient or merciful sentence remains lawful if it is within the reasonable sentencing range.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence imposed on the respondent offender under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offender had been convicted at Manchester Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, acquitted of attempted murder, and had pleaded guilty to dangerous driving. He received 30 months’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, a concurrent sentence for dangerous driving, and a driving disqualification.

The reference challenged the categorisation of the vehicle as a highly dangerous weapon, the assessment of the victim’s injuries as category 3 rather than category 2 harm, and the weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient.

Decision

The reference was refused. The sentence was lenient and merciful, but it was not unduly lenient.

1. The governing test remained that stated in Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41: a sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range which a judge, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. The reviewing court had to identify clear error before interfering.
2. The sentencing judge had heard the trial and was well placed to assess the circumstances. Her factual findings could be challenged only on the basis of irrationality. The reference proceeded on the footing that the offender had been driving without criminal intent until the situation arose unexpectedly.
3. A vehicle used to cause injury will ordinarily amount to a highly dangerous weapon. However, the question is whether it was highly dangerous in the offender’s hands, assessed by reference to culpability and the circumstances of use. Ordinary driving followed by an unexpected, spur-of-the-moment decision to use the car as a weapon could justify a lower culpability category. The court distinguished the circumstances in Hearn [2022] EWCA Crim 1535 and relied on the separation of culpability from harm discussed in Forrest [2022] EWCA Crim 1715.
4. Under the revised guideline, every offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent involved serious harm, but whether the injury was grave for category 2 was a matter of judgment in each case. Permanent or irreversible injury was not essential. The sentencing judge was entitled to consider the relatively transient nature of the injuries. The approach in Williams [2018] EWCA Crim 740 was considered in the context of the materially different current guideline.
5. After categorising the offence, the judge had to balance aggravating and mitigating factors. The reduction from the starting point was generous, but it remained within the bounds of reasonable sentencing. Leave to refer the sentence was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court refused leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient: [2024] EWCA Crim 744.
2. Crown Court at Manchester: The offender was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, with a concurrent sentence for dangerous driving.