Hussain, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 2 October 2023, following a trial at Manchester Crown Square Crown Court before Her Honour Judge Manley and a jury, the Appellant, then aged 26, was convicted of attempted rape of Victim 1 and assault occasioning actual bodily harm of Victim 2. The Appellant was acquitted of intentional strangulation of Victim 1 and oral rape of Victim 2. On 1 December 2023, the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of eight years for the attempted rape, and a concurrent term of four years for the assault.

The Appellant appealed against the sentence with limited leave granted on the ground that the Learned Judge erred in principle and/or imposed a manifestly excessive life sentence rather than an extended sentence under the Sentencing Act 2020. Other grounds were refused and not renewed.

Regarding the facts, on 10 August 2022, the Appellant targeted vulnerable sex workers in Manchester. He violently attempted to rape Victim 1, filming the attack while providing a running commentary. The attack lasted approximately seven minutes and ended only when disturbed by a passer-by. Shortly thereafter, the Appellant violently assaulted Victim 2, causing serious injuries and necessitating hospitalisation; Victim 2 died three weeks later from unrelated health issues.

The Appellant had a significant prior criminal record involving multiple sexual offences, including offences against children, and had been released on licence only 14 weeks before the current offences. Previous sentencing included an extended sentence for dangerousness, which had not deterred the Appellant from escalating his offending.

The Learned Judge had before her a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric report, both indicating a high risk of serious harm and future violence posed by the Appellant. The Judge found the Appellant to present an extremely high and enduring danger to the public, particularly vulnerable females.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Learned Judge erred in principle or imposed a manifestly excessive life sentence instead of an extended determinate sentence under sections 279 and 280 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
2. Whether the minimum term of eight years was manifestly excessive.
3. Whether the offences justified a life sentence given the circumstances and the Appellant’s previous convictions and dangerousness.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The offences did not justify a life sentence of imprisonment.
• Insufficient regard was given to the modus operandi of the attempted rape offence.
• Insufficient regard was given to the substantial differences between previous offences and the current offences.
• The minimum term of eight years was too long, especially considering time spent on remand and on licence recall.
• The appropriate sentence should have been an extended determinate sentence under the Sentencing Act 2020, not life imprisonment.

Court's Position

• The grounds relating to the minimum term were not renewed and considered not reasonably arguable.
• The life sentence was justified given the seriousness of the offences, the Appellant’s previous convictions, and the high and enduring risk he posed to the public.
• The alternative sentence of an extended determinate sentence would not provide sufficient protection to the public.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Attorney General's Reference No 27 of 2013 (R v Burinskas) [2014] EWCA Crim 334; [2014] 2 Cr App R(S) 45	Guidance on imposing life sentences under section 285(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020 (formerly section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), including factors to consider: seriousness of offence, previous convictions, danger to the public, and available alternative sentences.	The Court applied the Burinskas criteria, affirming that the seriousness of the offences, the Appellant’s prior convictions, and the high risk he posed justified the life sentence imposed by the Learned Judge.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first noted the statutory provisions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 regarding anonymity of victims. The Learned Judge’s sentencing was considered in light of the Appellant’s serious and escalating pattern of sexual violence, including offences committed shortly after release on licence for prior sexual offences.

The Court accepted the Learned Judge’s classification of the attempted rape as Category 2 harm with high culpability due to filming and degrading conduct. The assault on the second victim was considered an associated offence. The Judge’s assessment of dangerousness was supported by pre-sentence and psychiatric reports, as well as the Appellant’s conduct including denial and failure to attend sentencing.

Applying the guidance from R v Burinskas, the Court emphasized the importance of the seriousness of the offences, the Appellant’s prior convictions, and the high and enduring risk he posed to the public. The Court rejected the argument that the offences did not justify a life sentence, highlighting the escalating nature of the Appellant’s offending and the failure of previous extended sentencing to reduce risk.

The Court concluded that an extended determinate sentence would not adequately protect the public given the Appellant’s demonstrated dangerousness and likelihood to remain a risk for many decades. The life sentence was therefore not only justified but mandatory under section 285(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020 once the seriousness threshold and dangerousness were established.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED. The Court upheld the imposition of a life sentence with a minimum term of eight years for the attempted rape and concurrent imprisonment for the assault.

The decision directly affirms the sentence imposed by the Crown Court and confirms the application of the statutory framework for dangerous offenders under the Sentencing Act 2020. No new legal precedent was established beyond the correct application of established principles, particularly those in R v Burinskas. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s approach to managing offenders presenting a high and enduring risk of serious harm to vulnerable members of the public.