Imran, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 25 July 2024, following a Crown Court trial before His Honour Judge Thomas Gilbart and a jury in Manchester, the Appellant, then aged 27, was convicted of one count of rape. The offence occurred on 15 December 2018 when the Appellant, then aged 21, unlawfully entered the complainant's home and, while she was asleep and vulnerable, committed a sexual assault. The Appellant had initially been at a party with his cousin and others, after which the complainant and the cousin went to the complainant’s house. The Appellant later forcibly entered the complainant's bedroom while she was asleep, took a photograph of her naked without consent, and raped her. The complainant suffered significant and lasting psychological harm as described in her Victim Personal Statement. The Appellant was sentenced on 11 September 2024 to seven years' imprisonment without additional Sexual Harm Prevention or Restraining Orders due to considerations of appropriateness and proportionality related to his health and vulnerabilities. The Appellant appealed against sentence with leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of seven years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, particularly in light of the Appellant’s physical and mental health conditions developed since the offence.
2. Whether the case was exceptional and should fall outside the Sentencing Council’s guidelines due to the Appellant’s health conditions.
3. Whether the Appellant’s difficulties in custody rendered the sentence oppressive.
4. Whether the Appellant’s age at the time of the offence and his conduct since then warranted a different approach to sentencing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive and failed to sufficiently account for the Appellant’s deteriorated physical and mental health since the offence.
• The case was exceptional and should lie outside the standard sentencing guidelines due to the Appellant’s serious health conditions.
• The Appellant would face particular difficulties in custody, making the sentence disproportionately harsh.
• The Appellant was 21 at the time of the offence and had led a blameless and praiseworthy life since then.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the sentencing judge’s detailed and meticulous remarks, noting that the sentencing judge was best placed to assess the facts and circumstances of the case. The judge had correctly classified the offence under category 2B of the rape sentencing guidelines and identified aggravating factors including the victim’s vulnerability, the setting of the offence, the taking of a photograph without consent, and the deliberate targeting of a defenceless victim. The sentencing judge also considered mitigating factors such as the Appellant’s youth at the time of the offence, previous good character, serious health issues, vulnerability, and the delay in trial. The judge made appropriate upward and downward adjustments within the prescribed sentencing range and reached a sentence at the lower end of the range. The court found that the sentencing judge had given proper weight to all relevant factors, including the Appellant’s health and personal circumstances, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court also considered updated prison reports indicating the Appellant’s good adjustment to custody and adequate medical care, concluding that the sentence remained appropriate despite ongoing health concerns.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence, affirming the seven-year custodial sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The decision confirms that the sentencing judge’s careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors, including the Appellant’s health and vulnerability, was appropriate and within the bounds of the sentencing guidelines. There is no indication that this decision sets new legal precedent beyond the application of established sentencing principles to the facts of this case. The direct effect is that the Appellant’s sentence remains in force as imposed.