R v Sahil Arshad

Sentencing an offender who is just over 18 requires attention to age, maturity and the circumstances of the offending. Turning 18 is not a cliff edge: immaturity, susceptibility to peer pressure and poor consequential thinking may remain significant. In joint offending, the sentence must reflect the offender’s individual role, including whether he personally inflicted violence or used a weapon offensively. The court may take account of the overall offending and totality without double-counting an associated weapons offence. Imprisonment cannot be imposed on a person under 21 when convicted; the lawful form is detention in a young offender institution. An appellate court may quash and substitute a sentence that is manifestly excessive or unlawfully pronounced.

The appellant pleaded guilty to affray and possession of an offensive weapon. The offences arose from a planned attack at a school involving two baseball bats and an unidentified older man. The appellant was aged 18 at the time and accepted that he had not used the weapon to inflict physical violence. On 11 April 2025, the Crown Court at Reading imposed a suspended sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment for affray and a concurrent suspended sentence for possession of an offensive weapon. A younger co-accused received lower sentences.

On an appeal by leave, the appellant challenged the categorisation, alleged double-counting, treatment of his individual role, parity, delay and the legality of the sentences. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether imprisonment had been lawfully imposed.

The appeal was allowed. The sentence for affray was quashed and replaced, and the sentence for possession of an offensive weapon was corrected.

1. Sentencing just over 18. The court held that reaching 18 does not create a cliff edge for sentencing. The sentencing court must sufficiently consider the offender’s age and the circumstances of the offending. Immaturity, poor consequential thinking and susceptibility to peer pressure remained important because they were at the heart of the appellant’s conduct. The principle stated in R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185 was applied.
2. Individual responsibility. Although the offending was properly treated as a joint attack, the appellant’s sentence had to reflect his own role. He had not inflicted the violence and had not used the baseball bat offensively to cause injury. The court considered that the Recorder had focused insufficiently on those matters.
3. Double-counting and parity. The affray was properly placed in category A1, but towards its lower end because the harm was borderline between categories 1 and 2. An upward adjustment was justified for the aggravating factors and totality, including the offensive weapon offence. That did not amount to double-counting. The issue was not disparity with the co-accused, but insufficient focus on the appellant’s age and individual circumstances.
4. Delay and lawful sentence. The unexplained delay was rightly taken into account as supporting suspension and allowing the appellant to demonstrate a period without further offending and to gain employment. Under section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020, imprisonment was prohibited for a person under 21 when convicted. The sentences were therefore unlawful in form.
5. Substitution. The appropriate sentence at trial would have been 18 months’ custody, reduced to 12 months after full credit for the guilty plea. The court substituted a suspended sentence order of 12 months’ detention in a young offender institution, suspended for two years, with 32 days’ Rehabilitation Activity Requirement and 160 hours’ unpaid work. The £500 compensation order remained. Count 2 was corrected to detention in a young offender institution on the same terms.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 18 February 2026, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence for affray was quashed and a lower suspended sentence substituted. The sentence on the weapons count was corrected to detention in a young offender institution: [2026] EWCA Crim 296.
2. Crown Court at Reading — On 11 April 2025, the appellant was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years for affray, with a concurrent suspended sentence for possession of an offensive weapon.
3. Slough Magistrates’ Court — On 28 January 2025, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence.