R v Muaz Musa Ali

For defendants aged 15 to 17, the reduction from an adult guideline sentence is a rough guide, not a fixed percentage. The court must consider where the defendant falls within that age bracket, together with emotional and developmental age and maturity. A 50 per cent reduction is not automatic, and a two-thirds reduction is not mandatory. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, an extended sentence may be available through the separate four-year term condition even where the earlier offence condition is not met. Where the appropriate custodial term is at least four years, and the offender is dangerous, a five-year extended licence may be imposed. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Leeds of attempted rape committed when he was aged 17. He was sentenced to an extended sentence of nine years and three months, comprising four years and three months’ custody and a five-year extended licence.

After the Single Judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application. He argued that the custodial term was excessive because the judge had made a 50 per cent reduction for age without making a further reduction for other mitigation. He also challenged the length and statutory basis of the extended licence, including reliance on a previous arson conviction. The central issues were the proper youth reduction and whether an extended sentence remained available.

1. Custodial sentence. The court agreed that this was a serious and brazen attempted rape of a particularly vulnerable 15-year-old complainant. The sentencing judge was best placed to assess culpability and was entitled to place the offence in category 2B under the rape guidelines, with an adult starting point of eight years and an increase for aggravating features.
2. Youth reduction. Paragraph 6.46 of the Youth Guidelines provides only a rough guide for defendants aged 15 to 17. The reduction should reflect the defendant’s place within that age bracket. Emotional and developmental age and maturity are at least as important as chronological age. The guideline does not require a 50 per cent reduction for every 17-year-old and does not require a two-thirds reduction. The sentencing judge’s 50 per cent reduction reflected age and immaturity together with the other mitigating features identified. There was no basis to interfere with that assessment (paras [13]-[14]).
3. Availability of an extended sentence. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, section 267(1), an extended sentence is available if either the earlier offence condition or the four-year term condition is satisfied. Arson is not an offence listed in Schedule 14, so the applicant was right that the arson conviction could not satisfy the earlier offence condition. However, under section 268, the four-year term condition was satisfied because the appropriate custodial term was at least four years (paras [15]-[16]).
4. Dangerousness and licence period. Having regard to the nature of the offending, the applicant’s previous record, including simple arson, and the pre-sentence report, the judge was entitled to find that he was dangerous within the meaning of the Sentencing Act 2020. Because the sentence exceeded four years, the judge was entitled to impose a five-year extended licence under section 268 (para [17]). The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused (para [18]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Leeds: convicted the applicant of attempted rape and imposed an extended sentence of nine years and three months, comprising four years and three months’ custody and a five-year extended licence.