The Court of Appeal has set aside a four-year prison sentence imposed on Muhammad Hussain after finding that the Circuit Court used a disproportionate starting point when sentencing him for an offence involving travel to meet a child for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
The court allowed Hussain’s appeal against the severity of his sentence. It did not decide the replacement sentence. Instead, it vacated the four-year term and remanded him in custody pending a further sentencing hearing and decision by the Court of Appeal.
Hussain was convicted by a jury in March 2014 under section 3(2A) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. The offence related to his travelling to meet a child after earlier meetings or communications, for a purpose that would constitute sexual exploitation. The Circuit Court sentenced him to four years in April 2014, taking account of 13 weeks already served in custody.
The Court of Appeal said the offence was intrinsically serious, but the sentencing judge had not assessed its relative gravity against the broad range of conduct covered by the offence. The statute carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. The trial judge had classed the case as mid-range and used six to eight years as the starting range before mitigation. The appeal court held that this was disproportionate in the circumstances and led to an unduly severe sentence.
The court noted that the child was 13 at the time. It also said the relevant purpose of the proposed meeting had not been adequately analysed at the sentencing hearing. The court observed that Hussain had stopped contact after learning the child’s age in May 2011, that contact later resumed at the child’s initiative, and that the final meeting arrangements were made in a conversation he believed was with the child but was in fact with her mother. The court said those circumstances did not excuse the offence, but were relevant to its gravity.
The appeal court also ruled that the prosecution’s sentencing submissions had gone beyond the permitted role. There was no appellate guidance or reliable analysis of typical sentences for this newly prosecuted offence, so the prosecution should not have suggested a sentence range. The court said the sentencing judge erred in considering that submission.
The court upheld the trial judge’s decision not to treat an offer of compensation as a mitigating factor: the proposed meeting never occurred and there was no evidence of personal injury or loss. It was not satisfied that Hussain had been penalised for pleading not guilty; it considered it more likely the judge had declined to give credit for a guilty plea.
The Court of Appeal reserved the final sentencing decision for a further hearing.