Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault, each involving a separate complainant. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of seven months’ imprisonment, making a total of fourteen months. He appealed against sentence with permission. [1][2][3]
The offending involved persistent and unwelcome approaches to two women in social settings, followed by non-consensual touching. The conduct was supported by mobile-phone footage and CCTV evidence. [4][5][6][7]
The Appellant was of previous good character in the jurisdiction. A pre-sentence report identified poor boundaries, limited insight, a medium risk of serious harm, and a possible pattern of inappropriate behaviour. [8][9][10][11][12][13]
The sentencing judge categorised each offence as Harm Category 2, imposed seven months’ imprisonment on each count after applying totality, and ordered immediate custody. [14][15][16][17][18][19]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the offences were correctly categorised as sustained incidents and as Harm Category 2 offences. [20][21][22]
- Whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive or disproportionate. [23][24]
- Whether the custodial sentences should have been suspended under the Imposition Guideline. [25][26][27]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The sentencing judge wrongly assessed both offences as Harm Category 2 because neither involved sustained or serious sexual touching. [28][29]
- The brief and limited nature of the touching placed the offending at the lower end of seriousness. [30]
- In relation to the second count, the second complainant allegedly initiated contact in the takeaway, weakening the argument that the Appellant deliberately pursued her despite repeated refusals. [31]
- The resulting starting point was therefore too high, and the overall sentence was unjust and disproportionate. [32][23]
- The Imposition Guideline and the statutory presumption in favour of suspension supported a suspended sentence. [25]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Cicis (Ardzis) [2022] EWCA Crim 827 |
The assessment of whether an incident was sustained concerns the incident as a whole, not merely the duration of the sexual touching. |
The Court applied this principle in upholding the categorisation of both incidents as sustained. [21][33] |
| R v PD [2022] EWCA Crim 992 |
The same approach to assessing whether offending constituted a sustained incident. |
The Court referred to the case as supporting its analysis of the continuing and unwelcome conduct. [21][33] |
| R v Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1060 |
The decision whether to suspend custody involves judicial judgment rather than an arithmetical balancing exercise, and appellate intervention is limited unless the decision was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. |
The Court used this approach when reviewing the decision to impose immediate custody. [34][35][36] |
| R v Aliaj [2026] EWCA Crim 1141 |
The extension of the power to suspend did not alter the approach described in R v Price. |
The Court applied the same limited appellate approach notwithstanding the 2026 statutory change. [26] |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reviewed the evidential material, including the CCTV footage, and agreed with the sentencing judge that the Appellant’s conduct was deliberate, persistent, and unwelcome. [37][20][21]
It held that “sustained incident” referred to the incident as a whole, including the continuing unwanted attention, rather than only the period of physical touching. Both incidents involved persistent conduct despite clear indications that the attention was not welcomed or reciprocated. [21][33]
The Court rejected the submission that the second complainant’s engagement in the takeaway reduced seriousness, observing that she was intoxicated and particularly vulnerable and had previously made clear that the Appellant’s attentions were unwelcome. [22]
The Court therefore upheld the Harm Category 2 classification, while accepting that the judge had appropriately moved below the guideline starting point because the actual sexual touching was brief. The aggravating features and limited mitigation nevertheless supported the sentence imposed. [24]
The Court considered that the judge had properly applied totality and had made a significant reduction across the two offences. Because the offences involved two separate incidents and two separate victims, the total sentence was just and proportionate. [38]
On suspension, the Court held that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the Imposition Guideline. There was no realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community, no strong personal mitigation, no significant harmful impact from immediate custody, and a medium risk of reoffending and serious harm. These considerations outweighed the factors supporting suspension. [39][40][41]
The Court concluded that immediate custody was justified by the seriousness of the sexual offending and that the sentencing judge had neither erred in principle nor reached a decision that no reasonable judge could have reached. [42][27]
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed. The consecutive sentences of seven months’ imprisonment on each count, totalling fourteen months, remained in force. [2][18][27]
The direct consequence was that the Appellant was required to serve an immediate custodial sentence. The opinion does not identify broader implications or state that new precedent was set. [27]