Arshad, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns sentencing following guilty pleas to affray and possession of an offensive weapon. The Appellant (then aged 20 at sentence) pleaded guilty at The Magistrates' Court and was committed for sentence. At The Court (Judge Langdale) the Appellant was sentenced to a 16-month suspended sentence order suspended for two years with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of 32 days and an Unpaid Work Requirement of 160 hours for affray, and a concurrent four-month suspended sentence (suspended for two years) for possession of an offensive weapon; £500 compensation was ordered.

The Co-accused pleaded guilty to the same offences and received a six-month suspended sentence (suspended for two years) with similar requirements for affray, a two-month suspended sentence for the weapon offence, and £250 compensation. The sentences were pronounced as sentences of imprisonment rather than as Detention in a Young Offender Institution; the appeal addresses, among other issues, the correctness and severity of the Appellant's sentence.

Factual background: On a day in March 2023 the Appellant (aged about 18) and the Co-accused (aged about 17), together with a third, unidentified older male, attended the gate of The School in The City armed with baseball bats. Footage showed the three run towards a group of students; the Complainant (aged 17) was thrown to the ground and assaulted, sustaining bruising; the Complainant's younger brother (then aged 14) intervened and was struck with a bat. One bat and a pair of pliers were recovered. The Appellant was identified by a teacher and arrested; both defendants gave no comment interviews. The Appellant's basis of plea accepted that he did not use the weapon to inflict physical violence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the Appellant was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the affray and in applying aggravating factors (including alleged double-counting with the weapon offence).
3. Whether the judge failed adequately to take into account the Appellant's basis of plea, age, immaturity and the contents of the Pre-Sentence Report.
4. Whether there was unjustified disparity between the Appellant's sentence and that of the Co-accused.
5. Whether delay in prosecution amounted to a material mitigating factor inadequately reflected in sentence.
6. Whether the original sentences were unlawful because they were pronounced as sentences of imprisonment rather than Detention in a Young Offender Institution contrary to section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Panagiotopoulou)

• The starting point for the affray sentence was too high.
• There was double-counting by treating the presence of an offensive weapon as an aggravating factor for affray in addition to the separate weapon charge.
• The Recorder failed to give proper weight to the Appellant's basis of plea and appeared to undermine that basis.
• There was objectionable disparity with the Co-accused's sentence, who was younger and more culpable.
• The Recorder's indicated approach to the Co-accused's sentence lacked explanation for downward adjustment, giving the Appellant a legitimate grievance about procedure.
• The Recorder did not adequately account for the significant and unjustified prosecutorial delay as mitigation.

Prosecution's Position

• Categorised the affray as A2 under the guidelines (category 2 harm) and the weapon possession as B1 under the guidelines, with respective starting points and ranges as set out in the sentencing note.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the Recorder was entitled to categorise the affray as A1 but found the harm was towards the lower end of that category (borderline between category 1 and 2). The Recorder had identified relevant aggravating factors (weapon presence, presence of children, duration), and an upward adjustment from the bottom of the range was appropriate; the court did not find impermissible double-counting in treating the weapon as an aggravating factor alongside a separate weapon charge.

However, the court held that the Recorder failed sufficiently to focus on two key Appellant-specific factors: (1) the Appellant's youth and immaturity (he was just over 18 at the time) as reflected in the Pre-Sentence Report, including succumbing to peer pressure and poor consequential thinking; and (2) the Appellant's personal role in the offending (he did not inflict the physical violence and did not use the bat offensively, consistent with his basis of plea). The court concluded that these factors meant the 24-month custody figure at trial was manifestly excessive.

The Recorder had considered parity with the Co-accused and the Sentencing Young People Overarching Guideline, and had taken prosecutorial delay into account as supporting suspension; nonetheless, the court found insufficient weight was given to the Appellant's individual circumstances. The court determined that an appropriate trial-level adult sentence would have been 18 months' custody (equivalent to 12 months after full credit for plea), but, having regard to the Appellant's age and statutory restrictions on sentencing persons under 21, the court set a substituted dispositional outcome.

Separately, the court identified that the original pronouncements as sentences of imprisonment were unlawful for a person under 21 by reason of section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020, requiring correction to Detention in a Young Offender Institution.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF: The appeal is allowed.

Holding (direct effect): The court quashed the sentence on count 1 (affray) and substituted a suspended sentence order of 12 months' Detention in a Young Offender Institution suspended for two years with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of 32 days and an Unpaid Work Requirement of 160 hours; the £500 compensation order remains. The court corrected the sentence on count 2 (possession of an offensive weapon) to a sentence of Detention in a Young Offender Institution but otherwise left that sentence as imposed.

Implications: The decision reduces and corrects the Appellant's dispositional outcome to reflect youth and the statutory requirement to sentence under-21s to Detention in a Young Offender Institution rather than to imprisonment. No broader new precedent was established beyond applying existing principles (including R v Clarke) to the facts; the ruling's immediate consequence is the substitution and correction of the Appellant's sentences.