R v Mohammed Nadeem Hussain

For a dangerous offender, the assessment under section 285 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires consideration of the seriousness of the offence and associated offences, relevant previous convictions, the degree and likely duration of danger to the public, and available alternative sentences. A life sentence remains a sentence of last resort. However, where those matters justify life imprisonment, section 285(3) requires its imposition.

An extended sentence may be inadequate where previous extended supervision has not reduced an escalating risk of serious sexual and violent offending, the public danger is extremely high, and there is no reliable estimate of its duration.

The appellant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of attempted rape of C1 and assault occasioning actual bodily harm of C2. He was acquitted of intentional strangulation of C1 and oral rape of C2.

On 1 December 2023, the judge imposed life imprisonment for attempted rape, with an eight-year minimum term, and a concurrent four-year sentence for the assault. The judge found the appellant dangerous and treated the assault as an associated offence.

With limited leave, the appellant appealed his life sentence. The central issue was whether the seriousness of the attempted rape and associated assault justified life imprisonment, or whether an extended sentence would have afforded sufficient public protection.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in principle by imposing life imprisonment. Once she had properly concluded that the statutory seriousness threshold was met, section 285(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020 required a life sentence.

2. The court applied the guidance in Attorney General's Reference No 27 of 2013 (R v Burinskas) [2014] EWCA Crim 334. Although life imprisonment is a sentence of last resort, the statutory assessment requires consideration of the seriousness of the current and associated offences, previous convictions, the level and duration of public danger, and alternative sentences.

3. The attempted rape and the assault committed minutes later were particularly serious. Both complainants were vulnerable, the offences involved sustained violence and degradation, and the assault was properly treated as associated with the attempted rape. The acquittals on other counts did not reduce that seriousness; convictions on those counts would merely have added aggravating features.

4. The appellant's relevant convictions showed escalating sexual violence, humiliation and the recording or filming of victims. He committed the present offences shortly after release on licence from an earlier extended sentence. That sentence had not reduced his risk. The court upheld the judge's conclusion that he presented an extremely high public danger, with no reliable estimate of how long he would remain dangerous.

5. An extended sentence under sections 279 and 280 would not have afforded sufficient protection. The eight-year minimum term was not renewed as a ground of appeal and was not arguable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2024] EWCA Crim 824, dismissed the appeal against the life sentence.
• Manchester Crown Court — On 1 December 2023, imposed life imprisonment with an eight-year minimum term for attempted rape, and a concurrent four-year sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.