R v Ajaz Karim

When a defendant is sentenced for an offence revealed after an earlier sentence for similar offending, the sentencing court must have regard to totality. It should consider the recency and similarity of the earlier sentence, temporal overlap, whether the defendant could have made a clean sweep before the earlier sentence, subsequent offending, and whether the combined sentences are just and proportionate. These factors may require a downward adjustment to the later sentence. They do not necessarily justify a suspended sentence. Separate harm to a separate victim, denial of the offence and uncertainty about rehabilitation may make immediate custody necessary. A sentence may be manifestly excessive where a material adjustment is required to achieve proportionality.

This was an appeal against sentence from the Crown Court at Lewes. Following a trial, the appellant was convicted on 29 November 2024 of indecent assault, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, committed between 1991 and 1993 against a 13-year-old pupil at a school where he was a sports coach. On 13 December 2024 he was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment.

The appellant had previously received a ten-year sentence in 2018 for sexual offences against six other female pupils at the same school. The offending overlapped in time. The central issue was whether sufficient weight had been given to the earlier sentence and to the totality of the appellant’s criminality, while determining whether immediate custody remained necessary.

Disposition

The appeal was allowed to the extent that the determinate sentence was reduced from 21 months’ to 15 months’ imprisonment.

1. Immediate custody. The existence of an earlier sentence and the overlap in offending did not make a suspended sentence appropriate. Immediate custody was required because the offence involved separate harm to a separate victim, the appellant continued to deny it, and that denial affected the court’s ability to assess rehabilitation. In the circumstances, appropriate punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody.
2. Totality. The court considered the factors identified in R v Cosburn ([2013] EWCA Crim 1815) and expanded in R v Green ([2019] EWCA Crim 196; [2019] 2 Cr App R(S) 16). These included the similarity and temporal overlap of the offending, the absence of further offending, the appellant’s existing licence obligations and Sexual Harm Prevention Order, the opportunity to make a clean sweep before the earlier sentence, and the separate nature of the victim and harm. The Sentencing Council’s Guideline on Totality required regard to be had to the totality of the criminality so that the sentence was just and proportionate.
3. Appellate adjustment. The earlier sentence meant that the 21-month sentence failed to reflect the proportionate sentence that might have been imposed had the matters been considered together in 2018. A downward adjustment of six months was required. That reduction was sufficiently substantial for the original sentence to be regarded as manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence allowed in part. The sentence was reduced from 21 months’ to 15 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Lewes: Following conviction after trial on 29 November 2024, the appellant was sentenced on 13 December 2024 to 21 months’ imprisonment.