R v Aron Hadsh

On a reference against sentence under section 36, the Court of Appeal intervenes only where the sentence is not merely lenient but unduly lenient. The threshold is high. Multiple harm factors may justify an upward adjustment from a sentencing-guideline starting point, but aggravating features must not be double counted. A sentence within the applicable category range may remain lawful where substantial mitigation exists and the aggravating features do not justify departing above that range.

Following a jury trial in the Crown Court at Isleworth ([01FH1224224]), Aron Hadsh was convicted of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and acquitted of kidnap. He was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment and made subject to a five-year restraining order.

The Solicitor General applied for leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that the sentence was unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the sentence, assessed against category 2B of the Sentencing Council Guideline on Sexual Offences and the relevant harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, crossed the high threshold for appellate intervention.

1. Disposition. Leave to refer the sentence was granted, but the Attorney General’s Reference was dismissed. The sentence therefore stood.

2. References under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 serve to address gross error, substantial departures from ordinary sentencing norms and public concern about apparently unduly lenient sentences. The court applied the principles stated in Attorney General’s Reference No 132 of 2001 (R v Johnson) [2002] EWCA Crim 1418; [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 41 at [25], and reinforced in R v Mohammed Arfan [2022] EWCA Crim 1416 at [34]. Leniency alone does not justify interference; the sentence must be unduly lenient.

3. The trial judge was entitled to place the offending in category 2B, with a starting point of 12 months’ custody. The victim’s vulnerability, the touching of her naked breast and the prolonged nature of the incident justified an upward movement from the starting point. The judge was also entitled to consider alcohol and targeting, while avoiding double counting vulnerability already reflected in the harm assessment.

4. The judge had not identified a precise pre-mitigation sentence, but it was reasonable to infer that he had selected a term near the top of the category range before allowing substantial mitigation. A term of about 22 months reduced by eight months for mitigation would have been lenient given the seriousness of the offending, but it was not unduly lenient. There were insufficient aggravating features to justify exceeding the category range, particularly in light of the need to avoid double counting.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2026] EWCA Crim 365: leave granted to refer the sentence; the Reference was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Isleworth [01FH1224224]: conviction for sexual assault, acquittal on kidnap, and sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment with a five-year restraining order.