R v Nazir Ahmed & Ors
[2023] EWCA Crim 281
BPO v R
14 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 517
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of raping his half-sisters when he was a teenager. The judge gave him a 5-year sentence, trying to match what a judge would have given back then. The appeal was about whether the judge should have considered how much time he'd actually serve (due to early release rules). The court said no, the judge did it right.
Key Facts
- •The Appellant was convicted of three counts of rape against his two younger half-sisters, committed in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
- •The Appellant was sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment.
- •The appeal concerns whether the sentencing judge should have adjusted the sentence to reflect changes in early release provisions between 1978/79 and the present day.
- •The Appellant was aged 15-18 at the time of the offences.
- •The victims were aged between 7 and 11 at the time of the offences.
Legal Principles
When sentencing an adult for an offence committed whilst a child, the starting point is the sentence which was likely to have been imposed if sentenced shortly after the commission of the offence.
R v. Ahmed [2012] EWCA Crim 281
A sentencing judge should not ordinarily take account of early release provisions when deciding the length of a determinate sentence.
R v Patel [2021] EWCA Crim 231
In applying the principle in R v Ahmed, the court is not limited to considering culpability and harm at the time of the offence; the aim is to ensure the offender is not punished more harshly than they would have been at the time of the offence.
R v Ahmed
Outcomes
The appeal on ground 2 (regarding adjustment of sentence to reflect harsher early release provisions) was dismissed.
The court held that in applying the R v Ahmed principle, a judge should not consider early release provisions, either at the time of the offence or presently. The court found that the judge correctly applied the principle in R v Ahmed and R v Patel.
Leave to appeal on ground 1 (sentence manifestly excessive) was refused.
The court found the 5-year sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the severity of the offences (at least seven rapes) and the judge's conclusion that a court in 1978 would have imposed a section 53(2) detention rather than Borstal training.