R v Syed Chishti

For stalking causing serious alarm or distress, Category 1 harm may be justified by very serious distress and substantial lifestyle change, including suicidal thoughts and loss of employment. A combination of high-culpability factors may properly elevate culpability to very high where the conduct was intended to maximise fear or distress, involved significant planning, and persisted over a prolonged period.

A victim’s reasonable fear arising from the offender’s communications may be relevant even if the offender denies intending the feared consequence. Psychiatric evidence that an illness may have affected judgment does not require a finding of substantially reduced responsibility. Persistent offending after arrest and bail is a significant aggravating feature and may justify consecutive sentences, subject to totality.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Isleworth to two offences of stalking causing serious alarm or distress. The first count concerned conduct between January 2021 and December 2022. The second concerned further stalking after his arrest and release on bail.

He received consecutive sentences of 30 months’ imprisonment on each count, totalling five years, and a restraining order until further order. He renewed applications for a 72-day extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge.

He contended that the sentencing judge had given excessive weight to the complainant’s fear of violence, insufficient weight to psychiatric evidence, and too high a starting point for the second count.

1. The court refused both renewed applications. None of the proposed grounds showed that the sentences were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, so an extension of time would serve no purpose.

2. The judge was entitled to assess the offending as Category 1 harm. The complainant had suffered very serious distress, entertained suicidal thoughts, and had left employment twice. The judge was also entitled to find very high culpability. The conduct was intended to maximise fear and distress, involved planning and sophistication in obtaining contact details, and continued persistently over a prolonged period. Under the sentencing guideline, the combination of those high-culpability factors could elevate the case to very high culpability.

3. The complainant’s concern that the applicant’s sexual communications might expose her to violence from others was relevant to harm. That concern was distinct from the applicant’s denial that he believed or intended others to use violence. Although the judge referred to the applicant’s awareness of her possible fear, he immediately confirmed that sentence would follow the applicant’s basis of plea.

4. The judge had expressly considered the psychiatric report. Its conditional conclusion that a depressive episode might have affected judgment did not require a finding that the disorder had in fact significantly reduced responsibility. The nature and persistence of the offending entitled the judge to conclude that it had not.

5. The shorter duration of the second count did not undermine its seriousness. It was committed after arrest and release on bail, a significant aggravating feature. Consecutive sentences were justified, and the judge had reduced each to 30 months to reflect totality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence refused.

• Crown Court at Isleworth: on 24 April 2024, following guilty pleas to two stalking offences, imposed consecutive terms of 30 months’ imprisonment, totalling five years, and made a restraining order until further order.