Enhanced Sentencing Guidelines for Criminal Attempts: R v Aurangzab [2021] EWCA Crim 1132

Introduction

The case of R v Aurangzab [2021] EWCA Crim 1132 serves as a pivotal reference in the realm of criminal law, particularly concerning the sentencing of attempted offences. This judgment was rendered by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on July 13, 2021. The respondent, Aurangzab, was initially convicted in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton for two offences:

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Additionally, Aurangzab was convicted of attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm under section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing for the attempted offence was unduly lenient, thereby warranting a revision of the original sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 14, 2021, Mr Recorder Upward QC sentenced Aurangzab to:

3 years' imprisonment for the attempted offence (count 1).
No separate penalty for the assault offence (count 2).
9 months' imprisonment for dangerous driving (count 3), served concurrently with count 1.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the sentence upon an application by the Solicitor General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The appellant argued that the 3-year sentence for the attempted offence was unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal agreed, quashing the original 3-year sentence and substituting it with a 5-year term. This adjustment also influenced related orders, such as the disqualification period from driving.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shaped the Court's decision:

R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455: This case emphasized the importance of aligning sentencing with the nature of the offence and the degree of harm intended.
Attorney-General's Reference (No 4 of 1989) (1990) 90 Cr App R(S) 366: Established the framework for determining whether a sentence is unduly lenient.
R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592: Discussed the relevance of external factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, in sentencing.
R v Laverick [2015] EWCA Crim 1059, Attorney-General's Reference (R v Zaheer) [2018] EWCA Crim 1708, and Attorney-General's Reference (R v Muthuraja) [2019] EWCA Crim 1740: These cases collectively underscored the general principle that sentences for attempted offences are typically less severe than for completed offences, but the degree of reduction should consider various circumstances.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously evaluated whether the original sentence adhered to the established sentencing guidelines. The sentencing judge had failed to properly apply the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Act and the Sentencing Code, leading to errors in disqualification periods from driving. Additionally, the court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect factors such as the use of a vehicle as a weapon, the potential for greater harm, and the deliberate attempt to destroy evidence.

The appellate court concluded that, notwithstanding the offence being an attempt and the mitigating factors presented, the seriousness of the respondent's actions warranted a harsher sentence. The decision to increase the sentence to 5 years was grounded in ensuring that the punishment aligns with both the nature of the attempted offence and the principles of justice.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving attempted offences, particularly those carrying severe potential harm. It reinforces the notion that sentences for criminal attempts should be carefully calibrated, not merely relying on the completed offence's guidelines but also considering the specific circumstances of the attempt. Furthermore, it underscores the appellate court's role in ensuring that lower courts apply sentencing guidelines correctly and justly.

The case also highlights the importance of accurately recording court orders and ensuring that sentencing details are in compliance with relevant legislation, as seen in the corrections made to the disqualification periods under the Road Traffic Act.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 36 Reference

Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Solicitor General can refer certain cases to the Court of Appeal if there are grounds to believe that the sentence was unduly lenient. This mechanism ensures that sentences maintain consistency and uphold justice.

Unduly Lenient Sentences

A sentence is deemed "unduly lenient" if it falls outside the range that could be considered appropriate by a judge, considering all relevant factors. The appellate court assesses whether the original sentencing judge overlooked critical elements that should have influenced a harsher punishment.

Category 2 Guideline

The Sentencing Council classifies offences into categories to standardize sentencing. A "Category 2" offence typically involves serious harm with a high degree of culpability. For example, grievous bodily harm (GBH) is often categorized under Category 2, with recommended sentencing ranges to guide judges.

Conclusion

The R v Aurangzab [2021] EWCA Crim 1132 decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to proportional sentencing, especially in cases involving criminal attempts with significant potential for harm. By addressing and rectifying the original sentence's shortcomings, the Court of Appeal ensures that justice is both served and perceived to be served. This judgment acts as a critical reminder to sentencing judges to rigorously apply guidelines and consider all facets of an offence, whether completed or attempted, to uphold the integrity of the legal system.