Key Facts
- •Ebrahim Pandor sentenced to 6 years for trafficking LD for sexual exploitation (contrary to s.58 Sexual Offences Act 2003, now repealed).
- •Amjad Hussain sentenced to 10 years for rape of LD (contrary to s.1 Sexual Offences Act 2003).
- •LD was a vulnerable girl groomed and exploited by multiple men over several years.
- •Offences occurred between 2004-2010, with reporting in 2015 leading to multiple arrests.
- •Pandor had no prior convictions; Hussain had non-sexual prior convictions and absconded before trial.
- •Attorney General referred both sentences as unduly lenient under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Legal Principles
Unduly lenient sentence defined as falling outside the range a judge could reasonably consider appropriate (considering all relevant factors).
Attorney-General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41
When sentencing, judges must use the guideline current at the time of sentencing.
Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 1537
Where no definitive guideline exists, courts should consider analogous offences.
General Guideline: overarching principles, Step 1(a)
Sentencing for historical offences requires measured reference to current guidelines for equivalent offences, considering the potential for increased maximum penalties in newer legislation.
Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388
The offender must be sentenced in accordance with the regime applicable at the date of sentence.
Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act applies; victim's identity must be protected in publications.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act
Outcomes
Leave to refer Pandor's sentence granted, but sentence not interfered with.
Judge used incorrect guideline due to prosecutorial error, but the court found the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors wouldn't have changed the outcome even with the correct guideline. While a measured adjustment should have been made for the increased maximum sentence under the modern slavery act, the court didn't find the sentence unduly lenient.
Leave to refer Hussain's sentence refused.
Judge correctly applied the guideline and considered harm factors and aggravating factors; considerations of parity with other defendants in the same proceedings were not wrong in principle. The court felt that they couldn't substitute their judgment for that of the trial judge.