Gulzar, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 3 March 2022, the Appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Aylesbury to possession of a bladed article contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. On 9 June 2022, the Appellant pleaded guilty to two further offences: threatening another with a bladed article contrary to section 139AA of the 1988 Act and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On 18 November 2022, the Appellant was sentenced to a total term of 40 months' imprisonment, comprising 28 months for the assault, a concurrent 12 months for the offence under section 139AA, and a consecutive 12 months for the section 139 offence. The Appellant appeals against sentence with leave granted by a single judge.

Regarding the section 139 offence, on 14 March 2020 police attended a public house in High Wycombe following a fight. The police observed the Appellant deposit a large Rambo-style knife wrapped in a bandana containing his DNA. The Appellant was arrested shortly thereafter and admitted presence at the fight and intoxication but otherwise declined to comment.

The offences under sections 139AA and assault occurred on 26 March 2022 at a McDonald's in High Wycombe. The Appellant and a co-defendant engaged in a verbal argument and made threats to a victim. The Appellant stabbed the victim twice with scissors, causing wounds sufficient to expose fatty tissue. A physical altercation ensued involving chairs, after which the Appellant fled. The victim attended hospital but declined to provide a statement. The Appellant again declined to comment in interview.

The Appellant was born in August 2000 and was 19 and 21 years old at the times of the respective offences. He had a prior record including convictions for battery and public order offences but no prior custodial sentences. He had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC). Pre-sentence reports highlighted his neurodevelopmental disorders, difficulties with communication, impulsivity, poor temper control, and limited understanding of consequences, particularly when intoxicated or in conflict. The Appellant had not engaged with mental health services and had a history of aggressive behaviour including threats to family members.

Sentencing was conducted with reference to the Definitive Guideline categories for the offences, aggravating factors such as attempts to dispose of weapons, intoxication, and breach of bail and community orders. The judge found the Appellant to be a dangerous offender but did not consider an extended sentence appropriate. The Appellant’s age, immaturity, and background were taken into account, alongside his escalating violent record.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the Appellant was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of his age, neurodevelopmental disorders, and mitigating circumstances.
2. The appropriate extent of credit or reduction in sentence for the Appellant’s neurodivergent conditions and immaturity.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive given the Appellant’s youth.
• The convictions related to relatively minor offences.
• The Appellant had pleaded guilty on both indictments.
• There was a considerable delay in relation to the first indictment due to Covid-19.
• The Appellant’s neurodivergent conditions (ADHD and ASC) significantly influenced his behaviour and should have been given greater mitigating weight.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to each offence. For the section 139 offence, the court accepted the starting point of 18 months’ custody based on serious risk of disorder, aggravated by attempted disposal of the weapon and intoxication. A modest credit was given for the guilty plea.

The section 47 assault was classified as a serious offence with high culpability due to the use of scissors as a weapon causing two stab wounds, one inflicted from behind. This offence was treated as the lead offence with a starting point of 30 months, increased due to commission while on bail and a community order, and the Appellant’s escalating violent record.

The court considered whether the mitigating factors, particularly the Appellant’s age, immaturity, and neurodevelopmental disorders, had been adequately reflected in sentencing. The court noted that the pre-sentence reports identified significant developmental disadvantages but did not establish a sufficient causal connection between the disorders and the offending behaviour to justify a substantial reduction.

The court emphasised that the Appellant’s disorders warranted only a modest reduction in culpability. It also noted the Appellant’s failure to provide explanations for carrying weapons despite warnings about knife crime consequences shortly before the assault. The court applied the relevant sentencing guideline concerning offenders with mental or developmental disorders, which requires a careful analysis of the connection between the disorder and offending.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence for the section 47 offence was manifestly excessive due to an insufficient allowance for mitigating factors and reduced it by six months, from 28 to 22 months. The other sentences were upheld, resulting in a total sentence reduction from 40 to 34 months.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART by quashing the 28-month sentence for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm offence and substituting a reduced sentence of 22 months. The sentences for the other offences remained unchanged, reducing the total custodial term from 40 months to 34 months (2 years and 10 months).

The direct consequence is a reduction in the Appellant’s overall sentence. The court did not set new precedent but clarified the application of sentencing guidelines relating to offenders with neurodevelopmental disorders and the extent of mitigation such conditions may afford when balanced against the seriousness of the offences and aggravating factors.