R v Navjot Singh & Anor

For sexual assault sentencing, severe psychological harm places the offence in harm category 1, while offending by two men together engages culpability A. Those features make the offence category 1A, even where category 2 features such as touching naked genitalia, prolonged assault or additional degradation are absent. Opportunistic offending by delivery workers is not abuse of trust without a significant responsibility towards the victim on which she was entitled to rely. A young victim alone in her own home and bedroom provides separate aggravating features. Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave is not for borderline cases, but is appropriate where the sentence falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge.

Following a jury trial at Preston Crown Court, Navjot Singh and Sadnam Singh were convicted of two sexual assaults each against a 14-year-old victim. The sentencing judge imposed 30 months’ imprisonment. The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentences as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Navjot Singh remained within the jurisdiction and was represented by instructed counsel. Sadnam Singh had been deported after sentence, and his counsel could no longer obtain instructions. The central issues were the correct guideline categorisation of the offending and whether the reference concerning the deported respondent should proceed.

1. Reference concerning deportation. The court noted R v Bilalaj [2023] EWCA Crim 254, where the court proceeded with a reference after the offender had been voluntarily deported. It considered that the practical effect of deportation raised further issues, particularly where any increased sentence would not be served and counsel was no longer instructed. The reference concerning Sadnam Singh was adjourned for further submissions.
2. Applicable standard. Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range which the sentencing judge could reasonably consider appropriate. Leave should not be granted in borderline cases. The provision addresses gross error, and the court retains a discretion whether to intervene even where undue leniency is established.
3. Guideline categorisation. The victim had suffered severe psychological harm, placing the offending in harm category 1. The respondents had acted together, engaging culpability A. The offending was therefore category 1A. The absence of category 2 features did not justify placing it in another category.
4. Abuse of trust and aggravation. The delivery workers’ conduct was opportunistic and did not amount to abuse of trust because they had no significant level of responsibility towards the victim on which she was entitled to rely. Her age, isolation, and the fact that the offending occurred in her own home and bedroom were separate aggravating features. Those features were not absorbed into the assessment of psychological harm.
5. Disposition. The sentencing judge had erred by treating the case as outside clear category 1A offending and by failing to reflect the aggravating features. The appropriate sentence for Navjot Singh was four years. The reference was allowed, his sentence on count 4 was increased from 30 months to 48 months, count 3 remained concurrent, and the consequential orders remained unchanged.

• Crown Court at Preston: Following conviction after trial, the respondents were sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. No separate citation for the sentencing decision was stated in the judgment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave was granted for the reference concerning Navjot Singh. The reference was allowed and his sentence was increased to four years. The reference concerning Sadnam Singh was adjourned following his deportation.