Amaaz, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted in the Crown Court of assault by beating against one victim, assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Officer Ward, and assault on an emergency worker, Officer Cook. The offences occurred at The Airport on 23 July 2024. A separate count concerning Officer Marsden resulted in a directed acquittal after two juries failed to agree. [1][2]

The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence of 42 months’ custody: two months consecutively for the assault by beating, 40 months consecutively for the assault on Officer Ward, and 12 months concurrently for the assault on Officer Cook. [3]

The Applicant renewed an application for permission to appeal against sentence after a single judge refused permission. [4][5][6]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge improperly relied on the procedural history of the acquitted count when determining the factual basis for sentence. [7][8]
2. Whether the assaults on the police officers should have been treated as excessive self-defence arising from allegedly unlawful detention. [9][10][11]
3. Whether the offences were correctly categorised under the applicable sentencing Guideline and whether the resulting uplifts were excessive. [12][13][14][15]
4. Whether insufficient weight was given to the Applicant’s age, immaturity, character, mitigation and rehabilitation prospects. [16][17][18][19]
5. Whether the consecutive sentence and total sentence complied with the totality principle. [20][21][22]
6. Whether the sentence was unlawful because it was pronounced as imprisonment rather than detention in a young offender institution. [23][24][25]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant’s Arguments

• The sentencing judge improperly used the acquitted count’s procedural history to support adverse factual findings. [26][7]
• The police-officer offences arose during allegedly unlawful detention and constituted excessive self-defence. [9][10]
• The categorisation, uplifts and sentences for the offences against Officers Ward and Cook were excessive or insufficiently explained. [12][13]
• The judge adopted an incorrect approach to youth and immaturity and failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation, character and rehabilitation. [16][17]
• The consecutive sentence and aggregate sentence failed to apply the totality principle. [20]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the first ground was misconceived. The sentencing judge had not relied on the acquitted count to make adverse findings. The factual basis for sentencing on the two police-officer assaults was separate from the acquitted allegation, supported by the footage and established to the criminal standard. [8]

The Court rejected the self-defence argument. There was no rule requiring violent conduct to be treated as excessive self-defence merely because detention was allegedly unlawful. Whether the Applicant was the aggressor was fact-specific, and the judge was entitled to conclude that the Applicant acted offensively and without provocation. [11][14]

The Court upheld the Category 1A classification for the offence against Officer Ward, relying on her serious physical and psychological injury and the continuing impact of the attack. The uplift from the applicable starting point was justified by the seriousness of the offending and the identified aggravating factors. [14]

The Court likewise upheld the Category 1A classification for the offence against Officer Cook. The attack involved substantial force, multiple punches, and persistent conduct, which could be persistent even though it was short-lived. The additional sentence was not arguably excessive. [15]

The Court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the Applicant’s age and immaturity. The 25% reduction was appropriate, and the judge was entitled to rely on observations of the Applicant during two trials. The judge had also considered the Applicant’s background and guarded against stereotypical assumptions and unconscious bias. [18][28]

The Court rejected the challenge based on character and remorse. The judge had considered previous good character, positive references, personal mitigation and rehabilitation. The absence of remorse was not treated as aggravating, although the presence of remorse could have provided further mitigation. [19]

The separate assault on the other victim was serious, distinct in time and distance, and justified a consecutive sentence. The sentencing judge had expressly considered totality and was entitled to conclude that the overall sentence was just and proportionate. [21][22]

The Court also held that the sentence had been wrongly pronounced as imprisonment, contrary to section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020 as described in the judgment. The defect was technical and was to be corrected administratively. [25][27]

Holding and Implications

Permission to appeal against sentence was refused and the application was dismissed. None of the proposed grounds was arguable. [29][30]

The sentence was nevertheless recorded as unlawful because of the technical form of its pronouncement. The Crown Court record was directed to be amended to describe the sentences as detention in a young offender institution. The substantive sentence was otherwise left undisturbed, and the decision did not establish a new sentencing precedent. [25][27]