CROWN APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE AGAINST BARZAN NAWSHOWANI

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent was convicted on 2 February 2024 at the High Court at Glasgow of abducting and sexually assaulting a young woman at his place of work, a barber shop located at 438 Duke Street, Glasgow, on 7 August 2022. The charge involved abduction, detention against her will, and rape contrary to Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. Additionally, the indictment included a docket relating to an earlier incident on 2 August 2015, where the Respondent allegedly pretended to be a licensed private taxi driver and sexually assaulted another intoxicated woman. The evidence detailed the circumstances of both assaults, including the victims' intoxication and vulnerability, the Respondent’s deception, and the use of force in the 2022 offence.

On 26 February 2024, the Respondent was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, backdated to 25 August 2022. The trial judge found significant planning and abduction but also considered some mitigatory factors including the Respondent’s good work record, lack of analogous previous offending, and adverse personal history as a refugee from Iraq.

The Crown appealed the sentence as unduly lenient, arguing that it did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, the premeditated and predatory nature of the attack, and the need to protect the public and deter similar conduct.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the Respondent’s culpability and the seriousness of the harm caused.
2. Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient and failed to serve the purposes of sentencing, including public protection, denunciation, and deterrence.
3. Whether the trial judge was correct in considering the Respondent’s previous convictions and adverse personal history as mitigatory factors.
4. Whether an extended sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the risk posed by the Respondent.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge underestimated the Respondent’s culpability and the seriousness of the harm caused to the victim.
• The sentence did not sufficiently reflect the premeditated, predatory nature of the attack, including abduction and detention.
• The sentence failed to adequately protect the public, denounce the conduct, and deter others.
• The judge wrongly treated the Respondent as of previous good character despite prior convictions for road traffic offences and failure to appear at court, as well as self-disclosed convictions in England and Wales.
• The judge erred in treating the Respondent’s adverse experiences in Iraq as a mitigatory factor.
• Reference to the Sentencing Council guidelines for rape in England and Wales indicated a higher sentencing range (9–13 years) was appropriate.
• The criminal justice social work report recommended post-release supervision due to serious underlying attitudes and risk of reoffending.

Respondent's Arguments

• The trial judge did not err materially and properly considered all relevant factors.
• The sentence imposed was within a reasonable range and not unduly lenient.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the trial judge’s consideration of the Respondent’s lack of analogous previous offending and adverse experiences but noted these factors should not carry significant weight in a case of this gravity. The court accepted that the judge was not required to follow English sentencing guidelines or articulate a sentencing range explicitly.

However, the court identified important errors in the sentencing approach. It emphasized the Respondent’s repeated deception by impersonating a taxi driver to prey on vulnerable intoxicated women, including the victim in the 2022 offence. The court rejected the trial judge’s explanation for the Respondent’s route and conduct as opportunistic, instead characterizing the behaviour as calculated and predatory.

The court found that the original sentence did not sufficiently reflect the serious nature of the offence, including the abduction, detention, use of force, and the severe harm caused to the victim. It also concluded the sentence failed to adequately serve the purposes of sentencing: public protection, denunciation, and deterrence.

The court highlighted the victim impact statement demonstrating serious effects on the victim and underscored the need for women to feel safe when using taxis. It stated that courts will take a very serious view of offenders who exploit vulnerable women in such contexts.

Given these considerations, the court determined the six-year sentence was unduly lenient and outside the appropriate range. It concluded that an extended sentence of eleven years, comprising eight years’ custody and a three-year extension period, was necessary to satisfy sentencing objectives and protect the public from serious harm posed by the Respondent.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the Crown’s appeal, quashed the original sentence, and substituted an extended sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment (8 years custodial term plus 3 years extension), backdated to 25 August 2022.

This decision increases the Respondent’s punishment to better reflect the premeditated and predatory nature of the offence, the harm caused, and the need for public protection. The extended sentence underscores the court’s strong denunciation of sexual offences involving deception and abuse of vulnerable victims. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of established sentencing principles in this context.