R v Mohammed Danyal Imran

A sentence within the applicable guideline range will not be manifestly excessive where the sentencing judge has correctly identified the offence category, avoided double counting, and made a measured adjustment for both aggravating and mitigating features.

Serious physical and mental ill-health, vulnerability in custody, good character, youth at the time of offending, and delay may substantially mitigate sentence. They do not require departure from the guideline where the judge has given them proper weight and the seriousness of the offence justifies the resulting sentence.

The appellant was convicted after trial in the Crown Court at Manchester of rape committed against a complainant who was asleep in her home. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.

The judge placed the offence in category 2B under the rape sentencing guideline. He increased the provisional sentence to reflect aggravating features, including targeting a vulnerable complainant, then reduced it by two years for mitigation. The mitigation included the appellant’s good character, age at the time of the offence, serious subsequent physical and mental ill-health, and the difficulties he would face in custody.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. He contended that the sentence was excessive, that his health made the case exceptional, and that greater weight should have been given to his age, blameless intervening conduct, and delay.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The sentence of seven years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge had correctly assessed the rape as category 2B. The complainant was particularly vulnerable because she was asleep, drowsy after taking intoxicants, and wholly defenceless. The judge was entitled to regard the appellant as having specifically targeted that vulnerability.

3. The judge was entitled to increase the provisional sentence from the eight-year starting point to the top of the seven-to-nine-year range. The aggravating features included ejaculation, offending in the complainant’s bedroom, the photograph taken while she was asleep and naked, and the deliberate targeting of a vulnerable victim. He fairly avoided treating the appellant’s re-entry to the house as a further aggravating feature and avoided double counting.

4. The judge then gave proper and sufficient weight to mitigation. He took account of the appellant’s age of 21 at the offence, good character, serious physical and mental ill-health, vulnerability and likely hardship in custody, absence of further offending, and delay before trial. The two-year reduction brought the sentence to the bottom of the applicable guideline range.

5. The subsequent prison reports did not establish that custody would be unmanageably oppressive. The appellant had settled well, and the evidence indicated that healthcare and social-care needs could be addressed. In the circumstances, neither his health nor the other relied-on factors made the sentence excessive or required an exceptional departure from the guideline.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 162.
• Crown Court at Manchester Following conviction by a jury for rape on 25 July 2024, sentenced the appellant on 11 September 2024 to seven years’ imprisonment.