Hassan, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried in the Crown Court at The City in September 2020 on charges of three counts of vaginal rape and one count of assault by penetration, all committed on the same victim on 26 February 2017. The offences occurred within approximately half an hour. The Appellant was sentenced to concurrent determinate custodial terms of 10 years and 2 months for each rape count and 7 years and 10 months for the assault by penetration, alongside a driving disqualification and an indefinite restraining order preventing contact with the victim. The Attorney General applied for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient, specifically challenging the imposition of a determinate sentence rather than an extended determinate sentence under the dangerousness provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The victim had been out drinking and dancing with a friend before encountering the Appellant, who bought them drinks and remained close to the victim throughout the night. Despite the victim's reluctance, the Appellant persuaded her to accept a lift home. During the journey, the Appellant smoked cannabis to stupefy the victim, forcibly assaulted her, and raped her multiple times. The victim was intoxicated and terrified throughout the incident. The Appellant also took photographs of the victim’s bank card intending to commit fraud. The victim reported the offences later that day. The Appellant denied the offences during police interviews and at trial claimed the sexual activity was consensual, but the jury convicted him on all counts.

The Appellant had nine previous convictions, including a significant prior sexual offending conviction from 2007 for offences committed in 2006, involving similar predatory conduct. The sentencing judge categorized the offences as category 2A rape with severe psychological harm to the victim, who was particularly vulnerable due to intoxication. The judge increased the sentence above the guideline starting point for aggravating factors but reduced it slightly for mitigating factors, including delay in prosecution and prison conditions during the pandemic.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a determinate sentence rather than an extended determinate sentence under the dangerousness provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. Whether the Appellant should have been assessed as dangerous, warranting an extended sentence to protect the public from a significant risk of serious harm from future offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Attorney General's Arguments

• The Attorney General did not challenge the length of the overall custodial term but submitted that the Appellant was dangerous and should have been subject to an extended determinate sentence under the dangerousness provisions.
• The sentencing judge failed to obtain a pre-sentence report assessing dangerousness, which was particularly important given the serious nature of the offences and the Appellant’s previous sexual offending history.
• It was submitted that the judge’s conclusion that the Appellant was not dangerous was unreasonable in the absence of a risk assessment report.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing judge’s approach to the dangerousness provisions under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. While acknowledging the trial judge’s opportunity to observe the Appellant’s demeanour and evidence, the court found it was surprising and unfortunate that no pre-sentence report assessing risk was obtained in a case involving serious sexual offences and a prior sexual offending history. The judge’s conclusion that the Appellant was not dangerous was made without the benefit of a risk assessment, which is critical in determining if an extended sentence is appropriate.

The court noted that the prosecution did not invite an indeterminate sentence and the defence did not address dangerousness at sentencing, partly due to the trial judge’s expressed reluctance to impose such a sentence without prompting. The court emphasized that the offences were predatory and manipulative, with aggravating features similar to the Appellant’s previous sexual offences, suggesting a high risk of serious harm to the public.

Applying the principles from the cited precedents, the court ruled that the judge could not reasonably have limited the sentence to a determinate term without a pre-sentence risk assessment indicating low risk. Upon reviewing the material before the judge at sentencing, the court granted leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.

Although a pre-appeal report indicated a high risk of serious harm, this was not admissible in determining whether the sentence was unduly lenient but was relevant to the court’s decision whether to interfere with the sentence. The court concluded that the proper sentence was an extended determinate sentence incorporating a licence period to manage risk to the public.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE TO REFER the sentence on the grounds that it was unduly lenient for failing to impose an extended determinate sentence under the dangerousness provisions.

The court QUASHED the determinate sentences imposed on all counts and substituted extended determinate sentences with the same custodial terms concurrent on each count but with an added licence period of three years, resulting in a total effective sentence of 13 years and 2 months' imprisonment for the rape counts and concurrent adjustment for the assault by penetration.

The decision directly affects the Appellant by increasing the custodial sentence’s duration and imposing a post-release licence period to manage risk. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court reinforced existing principles concerning sentencing for dangerous offenders and the importance of pre-sentence risk assessments in serious sexual offence cases.