R v Ashraf Zaman Osmani

The sentencing framework for an offence under section 121 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must reflect the wide range of conduct covered by the provision. Relevant culpability factors include coercion, the offender’s authority, knowledge of the child’s age, planning, secrecy, steps to avoid detection, travel abroad and improper advantage. Relevant harm factors include the child’s age, the ceremony, education, physical or psychological harm, autonomy, exploitation risk, future prospects, consummation or cohabitation, continuing pressure and the number of children involved. The lists are non-exhaustive. Acts facilitating a child’s marriage will overwhelmingly attract custody. A community sentence may be available for a fleeting or incidental act by someone with little or no influence, but custody will be inevitable where a person in authority conducts and completes the ceremony.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two offences of carrying out conduct for the purpose of causing children to enter into marriage, contrary to section 121 (3A) and (9) of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The offences followed the statutory change made by the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022. The applicant had conducted a religious marriage ceremony for two 16-year-olds.

The Crown Court at Northampton, Choudhury J, imposed a total sentence of 15 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The application for leave to appeal sentence was referred to the full court. The applicant argued that the children were willing participants, there was no coercion or harm, planning was minimal, mitigation was strong and the custody threshold had not been crossed. The central issue was whether custody was required in these circumstances.

Appeal dismissed. The court granted leave because of the important issues raised, but upheld the sentence.

1. The court noted that the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 had made it illegal in England and Wales for anyone under 18 to marry or enter into a civil partnership. There was no offence-specific guideline for section 121 offences. The judge was right to consult the general guideline and to decline to apply the FGM guideline directly, because the offences differed, including in the immediate physical trauma and long-lasting effects involved in FGM.
2. Section 121 covers a wide range of conduct. For culpability, relevant considerations include coercion or pressure; the offender’s position of authority; knowledge or suspicion of the child’s age; whether the conduct was spontaneous or planned and repeated; openness or secrecy; attempts to avoid detection or safeguarding controls; taking or sending the child abroad; and financial, sexual, immigration, family-honour, reputational or other improper advantage.
3. For harm, relevant considerations include whether a ceremony took place; the child’s age; removal from education; physical or psychological harm, including fear, trauma, isolation or loss of autonomy; risks of unwanted sexual activity or exploitation; future prospects; consummation or cohabitation; continuing family or community pressure; and whether more than one child was involved. Neither list is exhaustive.
4. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess culpability as medium to low and harm as low. The applicant’s role as Imam created raised culpability because he should have known of the change in the law and recognised the risks of marrying children aged 16 to 17. The children’s willing participation, absence of coercion and absence of immediate physical or mental harm supported the low harm assessment.
5. Despite strong mitigation, the offence was sufficiently serious to require custody. General deterrence and safeguarding are legitimate sentencing considerations. Acts facilitating a child’s marriage are overwhelmingly likely to attract custody. A community sentence may be appropriate at the margin for a fleeting or incidental act by a person with little or no influence, but that exception did not apply: the applicant held religious authority and conducted and completed the ceremony. In those circumstances custody was inevitable as a marker of society’s commitment to safeguarding children. Religious concerns about preventing sex before marriage could not override compliance with the law.

• Crown Court at Northampton: After a guilty plea, Choudhury J sentenced the applicant on 19 January 2026 to 15 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2026] EWCA Crim 959 : Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.