R v Abdullah Khalid Mhana

On an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, undue leniency is assessed against the full criminality, applicable sentencing guidelines and the totality principle. The court must not simply add individual sentences, but must ensure that the overall sentence reflects all offending and remains proportionate. Separate victims, repeated offences, persistent grooming and manipulative conduct may justify a substantial increase in the notional sentence after trial. A guilty plea discount is applied after that assessment. Where the sentence is too short, the Court may increase the lead concurrent sentences while leaving other sentences and ancillary orders unchanged.

Following guilty pleas, Bradford Crown Court sentenced the respondent for numerous sexual offences involving two children and indecent images of other children. The sentence was structured around two lead counts and totalled 10 years and six months’ imprisonment after a 25 per cent guilty plea discount, with an extended licence period.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the notional sentence before discount was too low given the repeated offending, separate victims and lasting harm. The respondent submitted that the sentence was within the permissible range and that the sentencing judge had properly applied totality. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient.

Reference allowed in part. The Court granted leave and increased the sentences on counts 2 and 3 from 10 years and six months to 13 years and six months. Those sentences remained concurrent. All other sentences and the finding of dangerousness remained unchanged, and the extended licence period remained two years and six months.

1. The applicable offence-specific guidelines and the totality guideline required the sentence to reflect all of the offending while remaining proportionate. It was impermissible simply to add the individual sentences together.
2. The original sentence failed to reflect the full criminality against the first victim. That offending included at least six oral rapes while she was under 13, a sexual assault, repeated production of indecent images, and later sexual activity involving vaginal and oral penetration. The offending was aggravated by persistent and manipative grooming, repeated contact and coercive conduct.
3. The offending against the second victim involved separate criminality and separate harm. It included persistent grooming, causing her to watch the offender masturbate, and the making of indecent images. It therefore justified a notional consecutive uplift rather than being absorbed without sufficient effect into the sentence for the first victim.
4. After trial, the offending against the first victim required at least 16 years. The offending against the second victim justified a further two years, producing an 18-year notional sentence. Applying the agreed 25 per cent guilty plea discount resulted in a sentence of 13 years and six months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2024] EWCA Crim 746, the Attorney General’s reference was allowed in part and the lead sentences were increased.
• Bradford Crown Court — On 8 April 2024, the respondent was sentenced to 10 years and six months’ imprisonment, with an extended licence period of two years and six months.