R v Sahil Arshad

On 28 January 2025, having pleaded guilty before the Slough Magistrates' Court to a charge of affray and of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, the appellant (born 15 December 2004, so then aged 20) was committed for sentence, and on 11 April 2025, in the Crown Court at Reading (Mr Recorder Langdale KC), the appellant was sentenced to a suspended sentence order of 16 months' imprisonment suspended for two years with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of 32 days and an Unpaid Work Requirement of 160 hours in respect of the affray, and a suspended sentence order that was subsequently confirmed to be of four months concurrent, suspended for two years, in respect of the possession of an offensive weapon. The appellant was also ordered to pay £500 compensation.

A co-accused, Haroon Ahmad, (born 01 August 2005 – so then aged 20) ("Ahmad") pleaded guilty to affray and possessing an offensive weapon in a public place and was sentenced to a suspended sentence order of six months suspended for two years with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of 32 days and an unpaid work requirement of 160 hours in respect of the affray, and a suspended sentence order of two months, suspended for two years, in respect of the possession of an offensive weapon. The co-accused was also ordered to pay £250 compensation.

The suspended sentences were wrongly pronounced as ones of imprisonment rather than Detention in a Young Offender Institution. We will return to that in due course below.

The appellant appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.

Turning to the facts. On Friday 3 March 2023, when the appellant was 18 and two-and-a-half months old, and Ahmad was 17 and seven months old they, together with an older unidentified third male, attended the Westgate School in Slough at the end of the school day, and waited in bushes at the outside gates. The appellant and Ahmad were armed with baseball bats and were dressed all in black. The third suspect was wearing a balaclava. Ahmad could be seen in the footage to put a mask over his face as he ran across the road to the school. He then took his mask off, which eventually led to his identification.

The complainant was a 17-year-old student at the school. He had just left the front entrance with a group of friends. There were many other children present at the time. The footage showed that the appellant, Ahmad and the third suspect ran across the road and went straight to the group that contained the complainant. Ahmad threw the complainant on the floor, from which the complainant sustained a bruised back, and a fight ensued. The third unidentified male kicked and punched the complainant.

The complainant's younger brother, then aged 14, saw this develop and attempted to intervene. He was also set upon and was hit in the back and leg with a baseball bat. It was the Crown’s position that it was not the appellant that hit either the complainant or his brother with a bat.

Once more teachers came outside, the fight was broken up. The appellant, Ahmad and the third suspect ran to the other side of the road and got into a vehicle which then drove away.

One of the baseball bats was recovered from the scene of the offences. A pair of pliers was also recovered, although there was no suggestion from any witness that these were involved in the offending.

Both the appellant and Ahmad were previous students at the school, both finishing in 2021, six months apart from each other, and they had no reason to be there. The appellant was identified by one of the teachers who was present at the scene. That teacher also stated that the appellant was holding a bat but not using it, nor was he involved in the kicking and punching of the complainant. Ahmad was identified by the complainant. He was arrested on 19 June 2023, whilst the appellant was arrested on 30 June 2023. They each gave no comment interviews.

The appellant’s guilty pleas were on the following basis of plea which was acceptable to the Crown: "[the appellant] will plead guilty to Affray and Possession of an Offensive Weapon on 17th March 2023 on the basis that at no point was the Offensive Weapon in his possession used to inflict physical violence."

There were pre-sentence reports in relation to each of the appellant and Ahmad prepared by the same author. It is clear from those reports that each of the appellant and Ahmad had submitted to peer pressure from the third, but unidentified, older male who also appears to have been the instigator of the incident. The author identified that the appellant was lacking in maturity, that he acted impulsively going along with the older man’s choices and that he had very poor consequential thinking. The proposed recommendation for each of the appellant and Ahmad was a suspended sentence with 32 days Rehabilitation Activity Requirement and 150 hours of unpaid work.

The prosecution in a sentencing note categorised the affray as A2 under the guidelines: category 2 harm as falling between categories 1 and 3 due to the complainant referring to feeling "very scared", (starting point one years' custody with a range from 26 weeks to one year six months’ custody), and the possession of an offensive weapon as category B1 under the guidelines (starting point of nine months' custody with a range of six months to one year six months’ custody).

The Recorder considered that the affray was properly to be categorised as A1 under the guidelines: category 1 harm as whilst there was not serious injury (or indeed any substantial injury) he considered that there was "serious fear/distress caused" (starting point two years’ custody with a range of one year six months’ custody to two years nine months' custody). He also identified aggravating factors including not only the possession of an offensive weapon count, but also the presence of children and the duration of the incident. He stated that he would have arrived at a sentence for an adult of 32 months (that is one month short of the maximum in relation to category A1). However, having regard to parity with the younger defendant Ahmad and “crossing the 18 year old threshold” and the basis of plea, he reduced the sentence to 24 months’ custody (16 months’ custody after full credit).

The starting point for the affray was too high.

Alternatively, there was an element of double-counting when aggravating the sentence for the affray, given the second charge of offensive weapon possession.

The Recorder failed to adequately take into account the basis of the appellant’s plea in so far as his involvement was concerned. The sentencing remarks appeared to undermine the basis upon which the pleas were accepted.

There was objectionable disparity to the sentence imposed on Ahmad who was merely months younger than the appellant and was far more involved in the incident, using a baseball bat to inflict injuries, as well as punching the victims.

Having indicated that the appropriate sentence for Haroon Ahmad would be half of the adult sentence, the sentence passed was in fact even lower than that, with no explanation for the downward adjustment. The appellant therefore had a legitimate grievance arising from the sentencing procedure.

The Recorder did not adequately take into account the significant and unjustified delay in this case as a further mitigating factor.

We are very grateful to Ms Panagiotopoulou for the quality of her written submissions which she elaborated upon orally before us today.

This was a difficult sentencing exercise for the Recorder, presented with an offender just over 18 years old who had not inflicted any of the violence, and an offender only a few months short of 18 years of age who had inflicted most of the violence.

We consider that there is real substance in the central submission that is made, namely that the sentence passed in the appellant’s case of 24 months' custody at trial was manifestly excessive.

The Recorder was entitled to categorise the affray offending as category A1, but it was very much towards the lower end of that category as harm was borderline category 1/2 (consistent with the prosecution sentencing note and what prosecution counsel stated in opening the matter). A significant upward adjustment was necessary from the bottom of the range to take into account the considerable number of aggravating factors and totality (to reflect the offensive weapon count). We do not consider that there was any double-counting in that regard as alleged. The key consideration, however, when arriving at an appropriate sentence for the appellant was his age and the circumstances of his offending, having regard not only to his basis of plea but also, importantly, the content of the Pre-Sentence Report.

Whilst the Recorder clearly had parity in mind (i.e. the position as between the appellant and his co-accused) and whilst he also referred to the Sentencing Young People Overarching Guideline (specifically in the case of the youth Ahmad), we consider that he failed to focus sufficiently on two factors that related to the appellant himself. First, the fact that the appellant was only just over 18 at the time of the offending; and secondly, the circumstances of his offending.

"... reaching the age of 18 has many legal consequences, but it does not present as a cliff edge for the purpose of sentencing. So much has long been clear."

In this regard we consider that the Recorder failed to have sufficient regard to the content of the Pre-Sentence Report. It is clear that at the time of the offending the appellant lacked maturity, had very poor consequential thinking and succumbed to peer pressure from the third, but unidentified, older man, with him acting impulsively, going along with that older man’s choices. In short, he was young for his age, and his immaturity was clearly at the heart of his offending.

Secondly, and whilst it was rightly treated as a joint attack and sentenced on that basis, the appellant did not himself inflict any of the violence and, as recorded in the basis of plea, the appellant did not use the baseball bat offensively to inflict injury.

We do not consider that there is a disparity argument as between the two defendants, but rather a failure sufficiently to focus upon the appellant’s own age and the circumstances of his offending. Equally, the Recorder was alive to the unexplained delay in prosecution and rightly took it into account as a factor supporting the suspension of the custodial sentence and as having provided the appellant with the opportunity to demonstrate a lack of further offending, and to gain employment.

We consider that having regard to the appellant’s age, his lack of maturity and the circumstances of his offending, the sentence that was passed at trial of 24 months' custody was manifestly excessive and that an appropriate sentence at trial would have been 18 months’ custody (12 months’ custody after full credit for guilty plea) with the same requirements as were imposed.

The sentence was also pronounced as a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on a person aged under 21 when convicted is prohibited by section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020 . The sentence was accordingly unlawful in any event.

We accordingly allow the appeal, quash the sentence passed in respect of count 1 (affray) and substitute a suspended sentence order of 12 months' Detention in a Young Offender Institution suspended for two years with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of 32 days and an unpaid work requirement of 160 hours. The compensation payable remains £500.

We also correct the sentence on count 2 (possession of an offensive weapon) to a sentence of Detention in a Young Offender Institution but otherwise as sentenced.