R v Mohammed Al-Hassan & Anor

In sentencing a sexual assault, whether the Category 1 harm factor of abduction is established is a question of fact and degree, assessed against the full circumstances of the incident. Severe psychological harm may arise from the combined impact of the offending and the consequent need for the victim to recount it in police interview and at trial. Pre-existing psychological fragility does not prevent that finding: the offender takes the victim as found. Distinct harm, culpability and aggravating factors may be considered without double counting where they address different aspects of seriousness. Multiple harm and culpability factors may justify an uplift from the guideline starting point. An appellate court will uphold the sentence where the categorisation and uplift are justified and the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

Mohammed Al-Hassan and Mohammed Abdullah appealed by leave of the single judge against sentences imposed at the Crown Court at Southwark. They had been convicted on 28 January 2025 of sexual assault, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, committed jointly against a vulnerable 15-year-old girl. Al-Hassan was also convicted of breaching a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, contrary to section 354(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020.

On 24 April 2025, Al-Hassan received an extended determinate sentence comprising seven years’ custody and a three-year extension period. Abdullah received six years’ imprisonment. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had correctly categorised the sexual assault as Category 1A, based on abduction and severe psychological harm, and whether the resulting sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed both appeals. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offence in Category 1A of the relevant sexual-assault guideline, with a four-year starting point.

1. Abduction. Whether the conduct amounted to abduction for the purposes of Category 1 harm was a question of fact and degree. The trial judge had seen the evidence and was particularly well placed to assess whether the complainant was being controlled and detained despite the outward appearance that she was walking freely. The approach was consistent with R v Joinal [2020] EWCA Crim 707.
2. Severe psychological harm. The complainant’s pre-existing mental-health difficulties did not prevent a finding of severe psychological harm. Applying section 63(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2020, the court could consider the combined impact of the assault and the consequent need to relive the ordeal in a police interview and at trial. That harm did not have to be artificially separated. The offender takes the victim as found.
3. Uplift and double counting. The presence of multiple harm and culpability factors itself justified an uplift from the guideline starting point. There was no double counting where vulnerability formed part of the harm assessment but deliberate targeting of a vulnerable person increased culpability. Likewise, using alcohol or drugs to facilitate the offence was distinct from the appellants’ own intoxication.
4. Orders. Al-Hassan’s seven-year custodial term was justified, including by his previous similar offending and breach of the order. Abdullah’s six-year sentence was also justified. Neither sentence was manifestly excessive, and both appeals were dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2026] EWCA Crim 1070 : both sentencing appeals dismissed.
• Crown Court at Southwark: convictions recorded on 28 January 2025; sentences imposed on 24 April 2025.