R v Mohammed Nazim Hussain

A sentencing court must explain a substantial departure from the Sentencing Guidelines and allow for the fact that the offence was an attempt, mitigation and a guilty plea. An extended licence period must be assessed on its own merits and should not be selected simply to bring the total sentence up to the statutory maximum.

A serious record of similar offending may justify a starting point well above the guideline range. Dangerousness may be found where the offender’s history and risk assessment establish a very high risk of further specified offending and serious harm.

After pleading guilty, the appellant was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court for attempting to cause a child aged 13 to 15 to view an image of sexual activity, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, and attempting to engage in sexual communication with the same child. The lead count received an extended sentence of five years and four months’ custody with four years and eight months on licence. The concurrent sentence on the second count was 12 months.

The judge treated the lead offence as category 2A, referring to the ten-year maximum for the underlying offence under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and found the appellant dangerous. The appeal concerned the eight-year starting point, the allowance for mitigation and the guilty plea, the finding of dangerousness, and the length of the extended licence period.

Appeal allowed in part. The sentence on count 5 was quashed and replaced with 40 months’ custody and an extended licence period of 30 months. The concurrent 12-month sentence on count 4 remained unchanged.

1. The original sentence was manifestly excessive. The judge did not explain an eight-year starting point for an offence whose guideline range ended at three years. The sentencing remarks did not show what allowance had been made for the attempt or mitigation. Adding an extended licence period solely to reach the ten-year statutory maximum also left no allowance for mitigation or the guilty plea.
2. On resentencing, the offence was accepted as category 2A. In light of R v Brzozowski [2025] EWCA Crim 1113, the argument that there was no significant disparity in age was no longer arguable. The appellant’s appalling record of similar offending entitled the court to set the Sentencing Guidelines aside and go well beyond the recommended range. Despite the attempt, a starting point of about five and a half years was justified. Modest mitigation reduced the notional term to five years, and full credit for the guilty plea reduced it to 40 months.
3. The finding of dangerousness was justified. In light of the pre-sentence report and the appellant’s offending history, no other conclusion was appropriate. An extended licence period of 30 months was appropriate in all the circumstances.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 18 June 2026, the sentence appeal succeeded in part. The sentence on count 5 was quashed and replaced with 40 months’ custody and a 30-month extended licence. The concurrent sentence on count 4 remained unchanged. [2026] EWCA Crim 1060
2. Crown Court at Southwark: On 4 September 2025, HHJ Cole imposed an extended sentence of five years and four months’ custody with four years and eight months on licence for count 5, and a concurrent 12-month sentence for count 4.