Rezazadeh, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was sentenced to 45 months' imprisonment by HHJ Chambers QC in the Crown Court at Birmingham on 28 November 2019 for five offences of racially aggravated damage to property. The offences occurred in the early hours of 21 March 2019, involving attacks on five separate mosques in the Birmingham area. The first attack was at the Witton Islamic Centre, near the appellant's home, where he smashed windows and a door causing damage estimated at £4,500. The subsequent attacks involved similar damage to four other mosques within a few miles of the first.

The appellant used a sledgehammer and another weapon, disguised himself with dark clothing and a hat, and planned the attacks. He turned himself in the following day and initially admitted responsibility but later denied it during an interview, attributed in part to a relapse in mental health. He ultimately pleaded guilty, receiving a 25% sentence discount. At the time of the offences, the appellant was 34 years old, lived with family, and had a history of mental health issues including drug-induced psychosis related to cannabis use and medication non-compliance. The attacks caused significant fear and distress within the local and wider Muslim community.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence by insufficiently accounting for the appellant's mental illness at the time of the offences.
2. Whether mental illness at the time of sentencing, rather than at the time of the offences, should be considered in sentencing.
3. The appropriate categorisation of culpability and harm under the Sentencing Guidelines for racially aggravated criminal damage.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge ignored the psychiatric reports indicating severe mental illness at the time of the offences.
• The judge should have followed the guidance in PS, Dahir and CF [2019] EWCA Crim 2286 regarding sentencing mentally ill offenders, potentially reducing culpability and sentence severity.
• The mental illness at the time of sentencing, which was serious, should have been taken into account to mitigate the sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the appellant's mental health in relation to the offences, focusing on the time the offences were committed. It found that although the appellant suffered from psychosis, it was self-induced through cannabis abuse and medication non-compliance. The court emphasized that despite mental illness, the appellant retained high culpability due to planning, premeditation, and deliberate actions (disguising himself, arming himself). The harm was categorised as extremely serious given the impact on the Muslim community.

The court rejected the argument that mental illness at sentencing should influence culpability, noting that sentencing focuses on the offender's responsibility at the time of the crime. The judge’s consideration of psychiatric evidence was thorough and formed an integral part of the sentencing remarks. The increase in sentence due to racial aggravation was significant but not excessive, reflecting the serious fear and distress caused. The court upheld the sentencing judge’s balanced approach and adherence to Sentencing Guidelines.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the original sentence of 45 months' imprisonment for racially aggravated criminal damage. The decision confirms that mental illness, when self-induced and combined with deliberate criminal conduct, does not substantially reduce culpability. Mental health considerations must relate to the time of the offence for sentencing purposes. The ruling reinforces the importance of assessing harm beyond monetary damage, particularly in cases with racial or religious aggravation causing community distress. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing Sentencing Guidelines and case law.