R v Habibi [2025] EWCA Crim 1523: Uplifts, Totality and Procedural Requirements in Sentencing Assaults on Emergency Workers and Racially Aggravated Harassment

R v Habibi [2025] EWCA Crim 1523: Uplifts, Totality and Procedural Requirements in Sentencing Assaults on Emergency Workers and Racially Aggravated Harassment

1. Introduction

The decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Habibi [2025] EWCA Crim 1523 is a significant modern illustration of how courts should approach sentencing where:

  • there are multiple assaults on emergency workers;
  • a linked offence of racially aggravated intentional harassment is present;
  • the offender has a substantial history of violence and is in breach of a suspended sentence;
  • the judge has not explicitly stated in open court the notional sentence absent the “emergency worker” aggravation.

Although the judgment does not purport to forge a radically new principle of law, it consolidates and clarifies several aspects of sentencing practice:

  • the extent to which the uplift for an “assault on an emergency worker” can move a sentence beyond the guideline range for a basic common assault;
  • the relationship between guideline starting points suggesting non‑custodial disposals and the imposition of a concurrent custodial sentence in a multi‑offence context;
  • the proper use of the “totality” principle when one sentence is expressed to reflect several offences; and
  • the status of the Sentencing Council’s procedural requirement to identify in open court the sentence that would have been passed absent the “emergency worker” aggravation.

The case also powerfully underlines Parliament’s intention that assaults on emergency workers, and racially aggravated abuse of police officers, are to be treated as especially serious, even where the physical harm might be described as “minor”.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, aged 42 at the time of the index offences, appealed against the custodial sentences imposed at Isleworth Crown Court for:

  • two counts of assault on an emergency worker (police officers); and
  • one count of racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, contrary to s.31(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

All three offences arose from an incident on 18 July 2022, when the appellant, heavily intoxicated and behaving erratically at home, assaulted two police officers (PC Norman and PC Studley) and later racially abused a black officer (PC McFarlane) at the police station. He had pleaded guilty at the start of his trial and received:

  • 15 months’ imprisonment for the first assault on an emergency worker;
  • 12 months’ imprisonment for the second assault on an emergency worker (concurrent);
  • 12 months’ imprisonment for the racially aggravated harassment (concurrent);
  • plus a separate 3‑month consecutive sentence (not subject to appeal) for harassment without violence arising from later offending.

The sentencing judge stated that the 15‑month term reflected the total criminality of all three 2022 offences, applying the Sentencing Council guidelines and giving 10% credit for the late guilty pleas. The appellant, who had a substantial record of violent offending and was in breach of a suspended sentence, also posed a high risk of serious harm to family members according to an addendum pre‑sentence report.

On appeal, the sole contention was that the effective 15‑month sentence for the 2022 offences was “manifestly excessive”. The Court of Appeal (Cavanagh J) dismissed the appeal. It held that:

  • placing the underlying assaults in culpability category A and harm category 2 was plainly justified;
  • the uplift to reflect the “emergency worker” element and the further aggravating factors was properly substantial, as contemplated by the guideline;
  • although the guideline for the racially aggravated harassment offence indicated a non‑custodial starting point, it was appropriate to impose a concurrent custodial sentence in light of the totality and seriousness of the conduct;
  • the failure by the sentencing judge to state in open court what the sentence would have been without the “emergency worker” aggravation, while contrary to the guideline, did not render the sentence invalid; and
  • the overall sentence, while perhaps at the higher end, was not manifestly excessive in light of the seriousness of the offences and the appellant’s history.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Factual and Procedural Background

The events of 18 July 2022 began as a domestic disturbance: the appellant’s children called the police because of his “erratic and drunken behaviour” at the family home in Northolt. When officers attempted to calm the situation by asking him to leave the address, he turned his anger on them. The core features of the assaults were:

  • He picked up a dumbbell, which was then dropped, bruising PC Norman’s elbow. Although a basis of plea was accepted that he had no intention of using it as a weapon, its presence increased the fear experienced by the officer.
  • After being restrained and handcuffed, he attempted to punch PC Norman and grabbed the wrist of PC Studley, squeezing it hard and threatening to “fucking break that”.
  • He engaged in continued verbal aggression and made repeated attempts to punch and to bite both officers.

Thereafter, at Acton Police Station, the appellant, still aggressive and non‑compliant, racially abused PC McFarlane, calling him “nigger” twice. Each officer provided a victim impact statement describing the fear, distress and emotional toll of the incident. In particular, PC McFarlane described the racial abuse as making him question his role in the Metropolitan Police.

The appellant’s record was serious and relevant. Thirteen previous convictions were recorded, including:

  • domestic violence (e.g. battery of his son in 2018; assault on his daughter and possession of an offensive weapon in March 2022);
  • non‑domestic violence (battery in July 2021); and
  • a 12‑month suspended sentence imposed in March 2022, still operational when the July 2022 offences were committed.

Subsequent offending (not the subject of this appeal) included further domestic assaults in January 2023, again involving a dumbbell, and an arrest in February 2024 for assault on his daughter (apparently not charged). The appellant remained in custody for a substantial period on remand, including almost eight months after sending threatening text messages to his wife in October 2024.

The addendum pre‑sentence report painted a very troubling picture: no remorse, a tendency to blame his wife, lack of motivation to address alcohol abuse, and a conclusion that he posed a “high risk of serious harm” to his family and was likely to escalate his offending upon release.

3.2 Application of the Sentencing Guidelines: Assaults on Emergency Workers

3.2.1 Categorisation of the underlying assaults (culpability and harm)

The Court noted that there is a specific Sentencing Council guideline for assault on an emergency worker, which operates by reference to the guideline for common assault. Under that framework, two principal assessments are made at Step 1:

  1. Culpability – here both parties accepted that the assaults were category A because they were “prolonged and persistent”.
  2. Harm – the Crown argued for harm category 1 for the assault on PC Norman and category 2 for that on PC Studley; the defence contended both were category 3. The judge placed both in category 2 (minor physical or psychological harm/distress), and the Court of Appeal agreed that this was “entitled and indeed right”.

This meant that, before applying the emergency worker element, the starting point for each assault was:

  • a medium‑level community order; with
  • a category range from a low‑level community order to 16 weeks’ custody.

The Court’s endorsement of the A2 categorisation is rooted in the combination of:

  • the prolonged and threatening nature of the incident (including attempts to punch and bite);
  • the presence of the dumbbell, which, though not intended to be used as a weapon, objectively heightened fear; and
  • the emotional and psychological impact evidenced in the victim impact statements.

3.2.2 Uplift for “emergency worker” status

The Sentencing Council guideline for assault on an emergency worker explicitly states that:

  • the sentencing court should identify the sentence appropriate for the equivalent basic offence (here, common assault); and
  • then apply an “appropriate uplift” to reflect the fact that the victim was an emergency worker acting in the course of duty.

For category A2 cases, the guideline requires the court to:

“consider a significantly more onerous penalty of the same type or consider a more severe type of sentence than for the basic offence”, and notes that the uplifted sentence “may considerably exceed the basic offence category range”.

The Court of Appeal placed considerable emphasis on this language. It serves as a clear reminder that:

  • When sentencing assaults on emergency workers, it is not a mere marginal uplift from the “basic” common assault range that is envisaged; a substantial escalation is often appropriate.
  • The resulting sentence may move well beyond the community‑order/short‑custody range that would apply to a non‑emergency‑worker assault of comparable culpability and harm.

In Habibi, the judge ultimately imposed an effective 15‑month custodial term for all three offences combined. Allowing for the 10% credit, this reflected an initial custodial term of roughly 16.5 months. The Court accepted that this was a robust sentence but held that it was compatible with the guideline’s expectation that substantial uplifts may be necessary.

3.2.3 Totality and multiple counts

A key structural feature of the sentence is that the judge used the 15‑month term to reflect the totality of three related offences:

  • the two assaults on emergency workers; and
  • the racially aggravated harassment of a third officer.

He then imposed:

  • 12 months concurrent for the second assault; and
  • 12 months concurrent for the racially aggravated harassment.

The Court of Appeal accepted this as a lawful and principled application of the totality principle:

  • Instead of separately adding short custodial terms for each offence in a strictly consecutive fashion, the judge rolled all criminality into a single principal sentence (15 months) with concurrent terms on the other counts.
  • This approach is familiar in practice: where there is a tight factual nexus between offences, a single sentence can be made to reflect the full offending, provided the judge makes that intention clear.

The Court endorsed the judge’s method, emphasising that:

“the sentence had to take account of the criminality involved in the three offences, not a single offence”.

Accordingly, the real question on appeal was whether a 15‑month sentence for the cluster of three offences was manifestly excessive in light of:

  • the underlying guideline ranges;
  • the uplift for emergency worker status; and
  • the considerable aggravating features in the case.

3.3 Sentencing for Racially Aggravated Harassment

The racially aggravated harassment offence was charged under s.31(1)(b) Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which imports the elements of the basic s.4A Public Order Act 1986 offence (intentional harassment, alarm or distress) and adds a racial aggravation element.

There is a separate Sentencing Council guideline for racially or religiously aggravated public order offences. In this case, the parties disagreed on categorisation:

  • Culpability – The Crown placed it in the lowest culpability category (limited scope and duration, little or no planning). This was not controversial.
  • Harm – The Crown argued for harm category 1 (very significant distress/psychological harm); the defence argued for category 3 (limited distress or harm).

The judge in substance accepted the defence’s assessment, noting in particular the absence of evidence that the officer had sought professional help. The Court of Appeal clarified a technical point: on that categorisation, the correct starting point under the guideline was a Band B5 financial penalty, not a Band C5, with an overall range from discharge to a low‑level community order.

Nonetheless, the judge imposed a concurrent 12‑month custodial sentence for this offence. The Court held that this was not manifestly excessive because:

  • the sentence was concurrent and formed part of the global 15‑month term;
  • the offence was committed against a police officer in the execution of duty;
  • it involved use of profoundly offensive racial language (“nigger”);
  • it was committed while the appellant was drunk and during the operational period of a suspended sentence; and
  • the judge had properly decided that the principal sentence for the episode had to be custodial in any event.

This aspect of the decision is important for practitioners: it confirms that the existence of a non‑custodial starting point in a guideline does not prevent the court from:

  • imposing a custodial sentence for that count; and
  • doing so concurrently with longer custodial sentences for linked offences,

where the totality of the offending and aggravating features justify custody.

3.4 Treatment of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

At paragraph 18, the Court summarised the sentencing judge’s identification of aggravating features, which it endorsed as correct and weighty:

  • Multiple offences in a single episode – three separate offences on 18 July 2022 (two assaults and one racially aggravated harassment) needed to be reflected.
  • Previous convictions – a serious record of violence, including domestic assaults and use of weapons.
  • Breach of a suspended sentence – the July 2022 offences were committed within the operational period of a 12‑month suspended sentence imposed in March 2022.
  • Intoxication – he was drunk throughout, in a pattern of alcohol‑linked domestic and violent behaviour.
  • Public context of the victims – all three victims were police officers acting in the course of their duties.
  • Lack of remorse and insight – as detailed in the addendum pre‑sentence report; he blamed others, showed no genuine motivation to change, and was assessed as likely to escalate his violence.
  • Ongoing risk – he posed a high risk of serious harm to his family.

In mitigation, the main factors were:

  • guilty pleas (albeit late, on the day of trial), attracting 10% credit; and
  • the lack of more serious physical injury (no medical treatment required).

The Court did not criticise the 10% credit; it simply accepted the sentencing judge’s calculation that 15 months represented an approximately 10% reduction from a 16.5‑month starting point. Importantly, the Court’s reasoning shows that the extensive aggravation comfortably justified moving well beyond the community‑order starting points in the guidelines.

3.5 Appellate Review and the “Manifestly Excessive” Test

As is orthodox in sentencing appeals, the Court framed its task in terms of whether the sentence was:

  • wrong in principle (e.g. misapplication of a guideline, failure to consider relevant statutory factors); or
  • manifestly excessive (so far beyond the range of appropriate sentences that intervention is justified).

The Court explicitly acknowledged that the sentence was “perhaps severe”, but emphasised that:

“Having taken all of those matters into account, we consider that the sentence that was imposed by the judge, though perhaps severe, was not manifestly excessive.”

This underlines a familiar but important point: the appellate court does not recalibrate sentences simply because different judges might have chosen slightly lower (or higher) terms. It will only interfere where a sentence clearly falls outside the appropriate bracket or is infected by a material error of principle. In Habibi, the combination of:

  • the serious nature of the assaults (repeated attempts to punch and bite, threats to break an officer’s wrist, presence of a dumbbell);
  • the racially aggravated abuse of an officer;
  • the extensive aggravating features, especially the recent suspended sentence and domestic violence history;
  • the high‑risk assessment and lack of remorse;

meant that a 15‑month total sentence fell well within the permissible range.

3.6 Failure to State the Non‑Aggravated Sentence: Procedural Requirement vs Validity

The Sentencing Council guideline for assault on an emergency worker contains a procedural requirement: the sentencing judge should state in open court what the sentence would have been without the “emergency worker” aggravation.

In Habibi, the sentencing judge did not do this. The Court of Appeal commented (paragraph 20):

“The sentencing guideline for assault on an emergency worker says that the sentencer should state in open court what the sentence would have been without that element of aggravation. The sentencing judge did not do this, but his sentence was not invalidated because of this failure.”

This is arguably the clearest doctrinal point emerging from the decision. The Court draws a sharp distinction between:

  • best practice as mandated by the guideline – judges should articulate the non‑aggravated sentence to promote transparency and allow proper appellate review; and
  • strict legal validity – failure to comply with this requirement does not automatically render the sentence unlawful or unsound.

Instead, such a failure is relevant as part of the overall assessment of whether:

  • the guideline has been properly understood and applied; and
  • the eventual sentence can still be justified on the facts and within the statutory maximum.

In this case, the Court was satisfied, from the sentencing remarks and the structure of the sentence, that the judge had essentially followed the correct approach and that the uplift was justified. But the explicit clarification that non‑compliance with this aspect of the guideline does not “invalidate” the sentence will be of practical importance in future appeals.

3.7 Precedents and Authorities: Statutory and Guideline Framework

The judgment itself does not cite earlier case‑law authorities by name. Instead, it operates within, and reinforces, the existing statutory and guideline framework, notably:

  • Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, as amended, which created and later enhanced the offence of assaulting an emergency worker, setting a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.
  • Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s.31(1)(b), which adds racial aggravation to public order offences such as intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
  • Sentencing Council guidelines for:
    • common assault and battery;
    • assault on emergency workers;
    • racially or religiously aggravated public order offences.

In that sense, the guidelines functioned as quasi‑precedential frameworks. The Court’s application confirms and clarifies their intended operation:

  • They are to be applied systematically (culpability, harm, starting point, range), but are not rigid tariffs.
  • Uplifts for protected classes of victims (emergency workers; victims of racially aggravated offences) may legitimately move sentences beyond the standard ranges for the underlying conduct.
  • Non‑custodial starting points do not preclude custody where other factors (including totality) justify it.

The Court’s reasoning is also informed by Parliament’s stated intention in setting a higher maximum sentence for assaults on emergency workers than for common assault (6 months). At paragraph 22, the Court emphasised:

“The offence of assaulting an emergency worker is a significantly more serious offence than common assault, as indicated by the fact that Parliament has set a maximum sentence for common assault of 6 months’ imprisonment whereas the maximum sentence for assault on an emergency worker is 2 years’ imprisonment.”

This statutory contrast anchors the Court’s acceptance that quite substantial custodial terms may be appropriate, even where the underlying harm is moderate.

3.8 Impact and Future Significance

Although R v Habibi is fundamentally an application of existing law and guidelines, it is likely to be cited or relied upon in several areas of practice.

3.8.1 Reinforcing the seriousness of assaults on emergency workers

The judgment strongly reaffirms that:

  • Assaults on police officers (and other emergency workers) acting in the course of duty will be treated as qualitatively more serious than equivalent assaults on civilians.
  • Substantial uplifts are not merely permitted but positively contemplated by the guidelines and by Parliament’s legislative policy.

This gives further support to robust custodial sentences in cases of repeated, threatening or particularly degrading assaults on emergency workers, even where physical injuries are minor.

3.8.2 Sentencing racially aggravated abuse of police officers

The case also signals that courts will treat racially aggravated harassment of police officers particularly seriously. Practitioners can expect:

  • Significant weight to be placed on racial hostility towards officers performing public duties.
  • A willingness to depart upwards from non‑custodial starting points, especially where the racial offence sits alongside violent offences and other aggravating features (drunkenness, suspended sentences, repeat offending).

3.8.3 Clarifying the role of guideline “procedural requirements”

By confirming that failure to articulate the hypothetical non‑aggravated sentence does not invalidate the sentence, the Court has:

  • reassured that not every procedural omission in guideline application will amount to an error of law; but
  • implicitly encouraged judges to comply with such requirements to avoid unnecessary appeals and to enhance transparency.

In practice, future sentencing remarks in emergency‑worker assault cases are likely to be more explicit about the base sentence and the uplift applied, to forestall arguments on appeal.

3.8.4 Totality and concurrent custodial sentences where guidelines suggest community penalties

Defence practitioners sometimes argue that if an individual count has a guideline starting point of a fine or community order, it cannot properly attract a custodial sentence. Habibi confirms that:

  • in multi‑count cases, the court may impose a concurrent custodial sentence on such a count; and
  • this is lawful where the overall criminality plainly justifies custody.

This is especially relevant where there is a mixture of public order and assault offences in a single episode.

3.8.5 Emphasis on risk, domestic violence, and alcohol‑fuelled offending

The Court’s acceptance of the seriousness of the appellant’s risk profile — repeated domestic assaults, alcohol‑related violence, use of weapons, lack of remorse — underscores that:

  • Risk of serious harm to family members is an important aggravating context, even where the index offences are against police officers rather than family victims.
  • Ongoing domestic violence and alcohol abuse will be treated as indicators that strong deterrent and protective sentences are required.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

This section explains, in simpler terms, some of the legal concepts that feature prominently in the judgment.

4.1 “Assault on an emergency worker”

This is a specific criminal offence created to protect people such as:

  • police officers;
  • paramedics and ambulance staff;
  • firefighters;
  • certain NHS staff and others acting in emergency roles.

If someone assaults one of these people while they are doing their job, the law treats it more seriously than an equivalent assault on an ordinary member of the public. That is why the maximum sentence is higher (two years’ imprisonment, rather than six months for common assault).

4.2 “Racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress”

The basic offence is causing another person intentional harassment, alarm or distress (for example, shouting abuse at someone to upset or intimidate them). When the offender also shows hostility based on the victim’s race (such as using racist slurs), the offence becomes “racially aggravated”. This generally increases the seriousness of the offence and the sentence.

4.3 Suspended sentence and “operational period”

A suspended sentence is a prison sentence that is not put into effect immediately. Instead, the offender is given a chance to stay out of prison, usually on condition that they:

  • commit no further offences; and
  • sometimes comply with other requirements.

The “operational period” is the period during which the suspended sentence is “hanging over” the offender. If the offender commits another offence during that time, the court will almost always have to activate the suspended sentence, either in full or in part, unless it would be unjust to do so.

4.4 The “totality” principle

When someone is sentenced for more than one offence at the same time, the judge must look at the overall punishment to make sure it is not too harsh or too lenient. This is called the totality principle. Instead of just adding up maximum sentences for each offence, the judge:

  • may decide to make some sentences run concurrently (at the same time) rather than consecutively (one after another); or
  • may adjust the length of individual sentences to produce a fair and proportionate overall term.

4.5 Concurrent vs consecutive sentences

  • Concurrent sentences – the prison terms run at the same time. For example, two sentences of 12 months concurrent result in a total of 12 months in prison.
  • Consecutive sentences – the prison terms run one after the other. For example, 12 months plus 6 months consecutive results in a total of 18 months.

In Habibi, the 12‑month terms for the second assault and the racially aggravated harassment were concurrent with the 15‑month sentence, so the total was 15 months.

4.6 “Manifestly excessive”

On appeal, the Court of Appeal does not simply ask whether it would have given a different sentence. It will only change a sentence if it is:

  • wrong in principle (for example, because the judge misunderstood the law or applied the wrong guideline); or
  • manifestly excessive – so clearly too long that it goes beyond the range of fair and reasonable outcomes.

“Manifestly excessive” means something noticeably and clearly out of line, not merely at the higher end of what might be considered appropriate.

4.7 Credit for guilty plea

If a defendant pleads guilty, they usually receive a reduction in sentence (a “discount” or “credit”). The earlier the plea, the greater the discount. A plea at the first appearance might earn up to a third reduction; a plea on the day of trial, as in Habibi, typically earns a much smaller reduction (around 10%). This is to:

  • encourage early admissions of guilt;
  • save the time and expense of a trial; and
  • spare witnesses the burden of giving evidence.

In this case, the judge indicated he was giving 10% credit, which the Court of Appeal treated as equivalent to reducing a 16.5‑month sentence to 15 months.

5. Conclusion

R v Habibi [2025] EWCA Crim 1523 is a robust reaffirmation of the serious view to be taken of assaults on emergency workers and racially aggravated harassment of police officers. The Court of Appeal’s central messages can be distilled as follows:

  • Assaults on emergency workers justify substantial uplifts from the guideline ranges for common assault; the resultant sentences may legitimately move well beyond what would otherwise apply to similar underlying conduct.
  • Multiple offences, especially where one includes racial aggravation against an officer, can properly be reflected through a single principal custodial sentence, with concurrent terms on related counts, under the totality principle.
  • Even where sentencing guidelines for an individual offence suggest non‑custodial disposals, concurrent custodial sentences may be appropriate in the context of wider, serious offending.
  • Extensive aggravation — prior violence, breach of a suspended sentence, alcohol‑fuelled domestic and public offending, high risk of serious harm, and lack of remorse — will justify sentences at the more severe end of the spectrum.
  • Failure to state in open court the non‑aggravated sentence in an emergency‑worker assault case is a breach of guideline practice but does not, without more, invalidate the sentence.

Doctrinally, the case is less about inventing new rules than about clarifying and reinforcing how existing statutes and Sentencing Council guidelines should be applied in practice. For practitioners, it offers a clear blueprint for:

  • arguing for (or against) substantial uplifts in emergency‑worker assault cases;
  • understanding how racially aggravated harassment can attract custodial sentences even where guidelines point to community disposals; and
  • framing appeals on the “manifestly excessive” ground in the context of robust but principled sentencing decisions.

In the broader legal context, Habibi underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting emergency workers and to condemning racially aggravated hostility in public‑order scenarios, while maintaining fidelity to the structured, principled approach mandated by modern sentencing law.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Comments