R v Mohammed Ishtiaq

Sentencing for a group assault requires an evaluative assessment of culpability by reference to the applicable guideline. A victim may be vulnerable where, during an attack lasting some time, he becomes isolated from companions and outnumbered. The absence of a weapon may be reflected by adjustment within the relevant range without displacing high culpability. A marked age disparity between an offender and younger co-offenders may support attribution of responsibility for the group attack and their conduct. A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because it is severe where the sentencing judge has balanced the relevant aggravating and mitigating features and reached a proper sentencing judgment. Suspension need not be considered if the custodial term is upheld.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Stafford to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Following a group assault causing life-changing head injuries, HHJ Edwards imposed 30 months' imprisonment. The appellant challenged the categorisation of culpability as A2, the three-and-a-half-year starting point before reductions, and the decision to impose immediate imprisonment. He submitted that culpability should have been Category C and that the sentence should have been suspended. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. The court viewed the CCTV footage and upheld the judge's assessment of the offending as a group attack lasting some time. Although the victim had contributed to the altercation, he became vulnerable when isolated from his friends and outnumbered. The judge was entitled to assess culpability as high, within Category A, and to reflect the absence of a weapon by adjustment within the applicable range.
2. The sentencing judge had balanced the aggravating and mitigating features, including the delay and the absence of a weapon, and had concluded that a three-year term before credit was appropriate. The Court of Appeal did not regard the resulting sentence as manifestly excessive.
3. The footage showed that the appellant delivered the material blow. The significant disparity between the appellant's age and that of his younger co-accused supported attributing responsibility to him for the group attack and for the actions of those co-accused.
4. The court observed that, given the injuries and their impact, harm could appropriately have been placed in Category 1. Even if culpability had been assessed as B, the starting point and range for B1 were the same as for A2. This was an alternative observation and was not necessary to the dismissal of the appeal.
5. In light of the court's conclusion on the appropriate term, it was unnecessary to consider whether the sentence should have been suspended.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 20 March 2025, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 590.
• Crown Court at Stafford — Following a guilty plea, HHJ Edwards imposed 30 months' imprisonment for inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.