Hussain, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This was an appeal against sentence in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, from the Crown Court at Southwark. The Appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to two sexual offences involving a 14-year-old complainant: attempting to cause a child aged 13 to 15 to watch or look at an image of sexual activity (count 5) and attempting to engage in sexual communication with the same child (count 4). He was sentenced on 4 September 2025 to an extended sentence of 5 years 4 months’ custody plus 4 years 8 months’ extended licence on count 5, with a concurrent 12-month term on count 4, and appealed with leave of the Single Judge. [Para 2][Para 4][Para 5][Para 6][Para 24]

The offending came to light when the complainant’s father checked her phone after confiscating it because of concerns about sexualised TikTok videos. He found WhatsApp messages sent while the phone was confiscated, including a sexual message and two short videos of a male masturbating. The phone number was traced to the Appellant, he was arrested, and items at his address matched items seen in the videos. [Para 26][Para 27][Para 28][Para 29][Para 30][Para 31][Para 32][Para 33]

At sentence, the judge was concerned with the Appellant’s previous convictions and the Pre-Sentence Report, which described a very high risk of sexual offending and a high risk of sexual harm to children. The Appellant had a serious record, including a Hospital Order for rape, later offending while subject to supervision, and further breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. [Para 35][Para 36][Para 37][Para 38]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 5 years 4 months’ custody plus 4 years 8 months’ extended licence on count 5 was manifestly excessive, including in light of the guideline starting point, mitigation, and the guilty plea. [Para 47][Para 52]
2. Whether the judge was entitled to find the Appellant dangerous and, if so, whether the extended licence period was excessive. [Para 44][Para 45][Para 58][Para 59]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• Counsel Evans submitted that the 8-year starting point on count 5 was manifestly excessive and that the judge had not given sufficient weight to mitigation. [Para 47]
• She argued that, because the total sentence reached the statutory maximum of 10 years, the Appellant received no allowance for his guilty plea, and that the extended licence period was also manifestly excessive. [Para 47][Para 52]
• No separate submissions were made about the 12-month concurrent sentence on count 4. [Para 48]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the sentence on count 5 was manifestly excessive. It criticised the judge for giving no real explanation for an 8-year starting point when the guideline range topped out at 3 years, and for failing to make clear what allowance was made for the attempt or for mitigation. The Court also considered that the extended licence period appeared to have been set so as to reach the statutory maximum, thereby leaving no proper allowance for mitigation or guilty plea credit. [Para 52]

The Court then resentenced count 5. It accepted that, because of the Appellant’s appalling record of similar offending, the judge was entitled to move beyond the guideline range; taking the attempt into account, a starting point of around 5½ years was justified. The Court treated the mitigation as modest, reduced the notional term to 5 years, and then gave full credit for the guilty plea, producing a custodial term of 40 months. The 12-month concurrent sentence on count 4 was left unchanged. [Para 56][Para 57]

On dangerousness, the Court agreed with the judge and the Single Judge that no other conclusion was appropriate in light of the Pre-Sentence Report. However, it considered that the extended licence period should be reduced to 30 months. [Para 58][Para 59]

Holding and Implications

Appeal allowed in part. The sentence on count 5 was quashed and replaced with 40 months’ custody plus 30 months’ extended licence; the 12-month concurrent sentence on count 4 remained unchanged. The practical effect was a substantial reduction in the overall sentence, with no broader rule announced beyond the Court’s application of existing sentencing principles. [Para 62]