- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Al Mamun, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant was acquitted of two counts of attempted murder but convicted of attempted grievous bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm, and doing an act intended to pervert the course of justice. The Applicant had pleaded guilty to the latter offence. [1][2]
The offences involved using a vehicle to attempt to hit Victim A on repeated occasions and, several days later, using the vehicle to knock down and run over Victim B, causing serious injuries including two broken legs. The Applicant subsequently made a false report that the vehicle had been stolen. [3][4][5][6][7]
The Applicant was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for attempted grievous bodily harm, an extended sentence of 15 years for grievous bodily harm, and six months’ imprisonment for perverting the course of justice. The Applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after leave had been refused by the Single Judge. [1][2]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the overall sentence was excessive and insufficiently reflected the principle of totality. [8]
- Whether the sentence for attempted grievous bodily harm was excessive. [8]
- Whether the grievous bodily harm offence was wrongly placed in the highest harm category. [8]
- Whether greater credit should have been given for remorse and an earlier indication of an intention to plead guilty. [8]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Arguments
- The overall sentence was too long and insufficient account was taken of totality. [8][9]
- The sentence for attempted grievous bodily harm did not merit 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. [8][10]
- The injuries to Victim B did not justify placing the offence in the highest harm category because there were more serious examples of harm and the injuries were not permanently disabling. [11]
- Greater weight should have been given to remorse and an earlier indication that the Applicant wished to plead guilty. [8][12]
Respondent’s Position
The opinion does not contain a separate detailed account of submissions by the Respondent.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Laverick [2015] 2 Cr App R (S) | Assessment of an attempted offence should consider the harm intended or foreseeably capable of being caused, as well as harm actually caused. | The Single Judge relied on this approach when explaining that the completed offence should first be assessed before applying a reduction for the attempt. [10] |
| Muthuraja [2019] EWCA Crim 1740 | The same approach to sentencing an attempt, including consideration of intended or foreseeable harm. | The authority supported the conclusion that the sentence for the attempted offence was not excessive. [10] |
| Brown [2024] EWCA Crim 1099 | The same approach to determining the appropriate category and sentence for an attempted offence. | The Single Judge concluded that applying the correct approach could have produced a higher sentence, making the existing sentence lenient rather than excessive. [10] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The sentencing judge classified the grievous bodily harm offence as category A for culpability because a car was used as a weapon and the attack was persistent and prolonged. The harm was placed in category 1 because the injuries were particularly grave and had long-lasting effects. [13]
The applicable starting point for a category 1A offence was 12 years’ imprisonment, within a range of 10 to 16 years. The attempted grievous bodily harm offence was assessed as category 3 for harm, with a five-year starting point and a range of four to seven years. [14]
The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors including the Applicant’s police bail status and drug use. Mitigating factors included caring for the Applicant’s mother and expressing some remorse. The judge treated those factors as balancing each other and imposed 12 years for the grievous bodily harm offence, reducing the sentence for the attempted offence to 3 years and 6 months to reflect totality. [14]
The Court agreed with the Single Judge that Victim B’s multiple fractures, continuing pain and swelling, impaired mobility, inability to work, and uncertain employment prospects justified the highest harm category. The injuries had substantially affected the victim’s daily activities and work. [11][15]
For the attempted offence, the proper approach was to assess the category and sentence for the completed offence by reference not only to actual harm but also to intended or foreseeable harm, and then apply a reduction for the attempt. On that basis, the sentence imposed was considered lenient rather than excessive. [10]
The Court also accepted that the sentencing judge had properly weighed remorse and the alleged earlier indication of a guilty plea against previous convictions, drug use, offending while on bail, the absence of a written indication or entered plea, and the later denial of criminal offending. [12]
The Court accepted the use of consecutive sentences because the offences occurred on separate occasions, while also accepting that reductions had been made to achieve proportionality and totality. The Applicant was also properly found to be dangerous. [9]
Holding and Implications
Leave to appeal was refused, and the original sentences stand. [16][17]
The Court clarified that the total determinate sentence of four years for the attempted grievous bodily harm and perverting offences is to be served first, followed by the 15-year extended sentence. [17]
The Court also clarified that the 12-year driving disqualification comprises a two-year discretionary period and a ten-year extension period calculated under the relevant statutory provisions. [18]
The direct effect was to preserve the sentences while correcting their recorded order and clarifying the structure of the driving disqualification. The opinion did not set a new precedent.
Alert