R v Girdaware Basra & Anor

When sentencing historic sexual offences charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the court may use current guidelines for the corresponding modern offence, together with guidance on historic sexual offending. A sentencing judge need not quantify separately the reduction allowed for delay or for each mitigating factor. Delay ordinarily carries little weight where the offender committed further offences during the intervening period. Poor health is common in historic abuse cases and is not ordinarily powerful mitigation. In a multiple-incident case, the starting point may properly exceed the guideline starting point for one offence. Failure to impose the special custodial sentence required for an offender of particular concern cannot be corrected by increasing the sentence on appeal, but makes a challenge alleging excessiveness especially unpromising. Renewed applications that ignore clear reasons for refusal may attract loss of time orders.

Girdaware Basra and Onkar Basra were convicted after a trial at Woolwich Crown Court of serious historic sexual offences against the same complainant, committed when she was a child. Girdaware received a total sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment and Onkar received 11 years.

They renewed applications for permission to appeal against sentence. The grounds concerned the starting points, mitigation for delay and ill-health, and alleged disparity between the sentences. The Court also considered the failure to sentence both applicants as offenders of particular concern and whether loss of time orders should be made.

The renewed applications for permission to appeal against sentence were refused. Loss of time orders were made for 56 days in Girdaware’s case and 28 days in Onkar’s case.

1. Sentencing framework. The judge was entitled to have regard to the current sentencing guidelines for rape of a child under 13 and to the guidelines for historic sexual offences when sentencing offences charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The statutory maximum was life imprisonment under both the old and modern legislation. The applicants did not challenge the categorisation of harm and culpability.
2. Offenders of particular concern. In light of the relevant rape convictions, both applicants should have been sentenced as offenders of particular concern to a special custodial sentence under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The Court could not increase the onerousness of the sentences under section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The omission nevertheless meant that the sentences were less onerous than they should have been and made a challenge alleging manifest excessiveness particularly unpromising.
3. Girdaware. The sentencing judge was not required to quantify the reduction attributable to individual factors such as delay. Following R v Radcliffe [2024] EWCA Crim 1498 at [81], the complaint on that issue was misconceived. Delay could not justify a significant reduction because Girdaware had committed serious offences during the intervening period. His poor health was properly considered in the round, but was not a powerful mitigating factor. Since the lead count involved multiple incidents and there were separate convictions for rape and indecent assault, a starting point above 16 years could properly have been adopted.
4. Onkar. The 13-year starting point was the guideline starting point for the relevant offence and was not improperly equated with Girdaware’s higher starting point for multiple offending. The same two-year reduction for mitigation was cogent. A disparity challenge could succeed only if right-thinking members of the public would think that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice. That threshold was not met.
5. Loss of time. The applications were wholly without merit. They failed to engage with the clear reasons given by the single judge, including the possibility that Girdaware’s sentence could have been substantially higher and the omission concerning offenders of particular concern. The section 31 regime required those reasons to be addressed before renewing an application.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2026] EWCA Crim 613, renewed applications for permission to appeal against sentence were refused. Loss of time orders of 56 days and 28 days were made.
2. Crown Court at Woolwich — Following conviction after trial, Girdaware Basra was sentenced on 6 December 2024 to 14 years’ imprisonment and Onkar Basra to 11 years’ imprisonment.