R v Hamoda Alizarif Ebrahim
[2024] EWCA Crim 273
R v Morteza Azizi-Safa
19 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 76
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of indecent assault from many years ago. The judge gave him a longer sentence than he should have because he got some details wrong. The appeal court reduced his sentence but kept the order to stay away from the victim.
Key Facts
- •Morteza Azizi-Safa (appellant, age 68 at sentencing) convicted of indecent assault (contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) following a trial.
- •Offence occurred between July 8, 1996, and July 8, 1997, when the complainant was 15 years old.
- •Appellant acquitted of rape (counts 1 and 2) and another indecent assault (count 4).
- •Sentenced to three years' imprisonment and a five-year restraining order.
- •Appellant appealed against sentence.
- •The convicted count involved pressing his penis against the complainant's vagina (outside) during their first sexual encounter.
- •Appellant had no previous convictions. He had health issues including depression, angina, diabetes, and high blood pressure.
- •The prosecution argued grooming behavior (gifts to complainant).
- •Defense argued the offense was non-penetrative and should be categorized differently under the 2003 Act guidelines.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Reporting restrictions to protect victim identity.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956: Indecent assault on a woman (maximum sentence: ten years).
Sexual Offences Act 1956
Section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020: Restraining orders.
Sentencing Act 2020
Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003: Sexual activity with a child (different penalties for penetration vs. non-penetration).
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Sentencing guidelines for historic sex cases.
Guideline for historic sex cases – Sexual Offences Historical: Sentencing
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Recorder erred by not sufficiently considering the acquittals on other counts and incorrectly categorizing the offense under the 2003 Act guidelines. The sentence was considered manifestly excessive given the circumstances.
Three-year sentence quashed.
The offense was correctly categorized as Category 2A under the 2003 Act guidelines, leading to a lower starting point. The mitigating factors (good character, health issues) were insufficiently considered.
Sentence reduced to 18 months' imprisonment.
Reflects the appropriate starting point for a Category 2A offense, with consideration of mitigating factors.
Restraining order upheld.
The seriousness of the offense warranted the restraining order.