Ali, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal from a sentence imposed after conviction for attempted rape following a trial at the Crown Court at The City before Judge Batiste and a jury. The Appellant was convicted on 19 May 2025 and sentenced on 13 June 2025 to an extended sentence totalling 9 years 3 months, comprising a custodial term of 4 years 3 months and a 5-year extended licence. The Appellant renews an application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the Single Judge.

The facts, as found at trial, were that on the evening of 10 May 2025 a 15-year-old female (the Complainant) who was intoxicated was approached in a public area of The City. The Appellant, who was sitting nearby, engaged with the Complainant, forcibly kissed and bit her, carried her to a secluded area near a public building, caused her to hit her head, pulled down her trousers and underwear, attempted to touch her vagina, and masturbated whilst she struggled, kicked and screamed. Passersby intervened and police nearby arrested the Appellant.

At sentence the judge treated the offence as in culpability category B and harm category 2 under the relevant rape guidelines, identified aggravating features (public location, presence of others, alcohol, previous offences and an existing referral order) and mitigation (youth, immaturity and difficult background including PTSD). The judge indicated an adult starting point that would have been 8½ years for rape, applied reductions consistent with the Youth Guidelines to arrive at a custodial term of 4 years 3 months and imposed an extended licence of 5 years after making a finding of dangerousness.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the custodial element of the sentence was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the finding of dangerousness and resulting 5-year extended licence were appropriate.
3. Whether the judge erred by treating a prior 2023 arson conviction as a qualifying offence under Schedule 14 to the Sentencing Act 2020.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The custodial element was manifestly excessive; the judge reduced the sentence by 50% for age and should have made a further reduction to reflect other mitigation.
• The finding of dangerousness should not have produced so long an extended licence.
• The judge erred in treating a 2023 arson conviction as a qualifying offence under Schedule 14 to the Sentencing Act 2020.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first noted the application of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to restrict publication identifying the Complainant.

The court agreed with the trial judge's assessment of culpability and harm: the offence was a serious, brazen attempt on a highly vulnerable young intoxicated person in a public area, justifying placement in category 2B with an adult starting point (around 8 years) and allowance for aggravating features to increase that figure.

The court analysed the application of the Youth Guidelines (paragraph 6.46), observing that the guideline permits a reduction broadly within the region of half to two-thirds of the adult sentence for ages 15–17, but that the reduction is not mechanistic and must consider emotional and developmental maturity. The court concluded the trial judge properly applied a 50% reduction to reflect age and other mitigation and saw no error in that part of the sentencing exercise.

Turning to dangerousness and the extended sentence, the court analysed section 267 of the Sentencing Act 2020. It accepted that the judge was incorrect to treat the 2023 arson conviction as satisfying the "earlier offence condition" in Schedule 14 (arson is not listed). However, the court explained that the "4 year term condition" in section 268 was satisfied because the appropriate custodial term would be at least 4 years. Given the offending, the Appellant's record (including the arson) and the pre-sentence report, the court held the trial judge was entitled to conclude the Appellant was "dangerous" within the meaning of the Sentencing Act 2020 and therefore to impose the extended licence period permissible where the custodial term met the statutory threshold.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION REFUSED

Direct effect: the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused and the sentence of an extended sentence totalling 9 years 3 months (custody 4 years 3 months; extended licence 5 years) stands.

Although the trial judge erred in characterising the 2023 arson as a Schedule 14 qualifying offence, that error did not alter the availability of an extended sentence because the statutory "4 year term condition" was satisfied; no new legal precedent was established by this decision.