R v Mohammed Ishtiaq [2025] EWCA Crim 590

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 590Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Thursday, 20 March 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE JEREMY BAKERMRS JUSTICE THORNTON DBEMR JUSTICE BENNATHAN
Between
REXCrownV
Between
MOHAMMED ISHTIAQ__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR N GERRITY appeared for Appellant_________J U D G M E N T

Introduction

[1]The Appellant appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge in relation to a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment imposed following a guilty plea to one count of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The facts The offending conduct is captured on CCTV footage which we have viewed. On 11 September 2021 in the early hours of the morning two groups of men congregated on the pavement close to a public house. One group comprised the Appellant, then aged 43, and his co-accused, who were his much younger cousin Hamza Ali, aged 18, and an even younger third individual, Ejaz Nawaz, then aged 16 years. The other group comprised Mr Hollingsworth and his associates.[2]There was some sort of interaction between the two groups. The Appellant and his co-accused got into a car and started to drive away. The footage shows Mr Hollingsworth standing in the street and apparently shouting and gesticulating at the car. The car stopped and the two co-accused got out of the car and started running towards Mr Hollingsworth. Mr Hollingsworth ran away, along with his friends. The Appellant got out from the driver's seat and followed the co-accused. He can be seen walking rather than running.[3]There is then a period of several minutes during which time the men are chasing each other and during the course of which Mr Hollingsworth becomes separated from his friends. It appears from the footage that he becomes the focus of pursuit. The footage then shows the Appellant and the two co-accused starting to surround Mr Hollingsworth. Whilst Mr Hollingsworth stand facing one of the co-accused the Appellant approaches him from his side and punches him to the head, whereupon Mr Hollingsworth immediately drops to the floor. Witnesses saw and heard his head strike the pavement. He can be seen on the footage lying motionless. He is then kicked by the co-accused.[4]The Appellant and his group leave the scene in the vehicle. Witnesses passed their registration details to the police who followed the car. The police stopped the vehicle and the Appellant was apprehended after initially running away. His co-defendants were also arrested.[5]The victim was taken to the critical care unit at Royal Stoke Hospital. He had an epidural hematoma on both sides of his head, bleeds on the brain and a fractured skull. A depressive craniotomy was conducted during which a portion of his skull was removed and he had reconstructive surgery to repair the skull. He spent 10 days in a coma, further time in intensive care and was in and out of hospital for six to 12 months. As is apparent from his victim personal statement the impacts are long term. Approximately three years after the assault he has constant pain in his scalp and his life continues to be affected. Sentencing remarks[6]In sentencing the Appellant and his co-accused the judge said that the victim could not be wholly exonerated from blame for the altercation but he did not deserve what happened to him. He referred to the Appellant's punch as a full force right-handed punch, described as a sucker punch, which blindsided the victim and left him completely unable to defend himself. Whilst the Appellant could not have foreseen the consequences, they were grave, resulting in life-changing injuries and requiring a portion of the victim’s skull to be removed. It was, said the judge, a joint attack on a single man.[7]He categorised the offending as A2 in the relevant guideline. The victim was obviously vulnerable when set upon, three onto one, and he went on to say as follows in relation to the Appellant:
"... it is advanced very ably on your behalf that you were not the ringleader but a driver who got out the car and was walking some way behind the others who were fighting and running around the street. It was a single blow. No weapon was involved. No intention of course can be attributed to your act. You have no record for violence. The offence is over three years old, but you are considerably older than the other two in the dock, twice the age of those other two young men and it was your punch that did the real damage. Mr Iqbal I think one of your referees describes you as possessing a strong moral compass and sense of responsibility and regard for the law, attributes which unfortunately deserted you that night."
[8]The judge concluded that after a trial the sentence would have been three-and-a-half years which he reduced to three years to account for delay and credit for plea. Hamza Ali, aged 18, was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. Ejaz Nawaz, aged 16 years, was sentenced to 10 months' detention in a young offender institution. Grounds of appeal[9]The grounds of appeal are that the sentence was manifestly excessive for the following reasons: 1. the judge wrongly placed the appellant within culpability A within the sentencing guidelines; 2. the three-and-a-half year starting point was too high; and 3. the sentence should have been within a range that could have been suspended. A sentence of immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive.[10]Before us today it is said on the Appellant's behalf that the judge was wrong to consider the incident sustained or that the victim was vulnerable, given the victim is seen on CCTV acting provocatively and actively seeking a fight. The victim had ample opportunity to desist. Whilst the incident went on for some minutes, the Appellant delivered a single punch and walked away. His involvement was limited and of short duration. It is submitted before us that culpability should have been Category C and there was no evidential basis to conclude the Appellant had struck the victim with full force. Discussion[11]The assessment of culpability requires a judgment by a sentencing judge in accordance with the relevant factors set out in the relevant guideline. This was a group attack which went on for some time, during the course of which the victim became vulnerable to a degree, by reason of being isolated from his friends and becoming outnumbered. In our view the judge was right to conclude that culpability was high (A) and that the lesser culpability factor of no weapon being used could be reflected by an adjustment within the range.[12]Having balanced the aggravating and mitigating features, including delay and there being no weapon involved, the judge came to a judgment that a term of three years before credit was appropriate.[13]We do not consider the term to be manifestly excessive for the reasons given by the judge. The footage provides evidence that the Appellant's punch delivered the material blow. In our view there is a significant material disparity in ages between the Appellant and the co-accused and there is a consequent attribution of responsibility to the Appellant for the group attack and the actions of his younger co-accused.[14]It may be observed that given the injuries and the impact on the victim, harm in this case could have been appropriately categorised as Category 1. If so, even had we accepted the submissions before us that culpability should have been appropriately considered to be B, or even C, the starting point and range certainly for culpability B1 are the same for A2.[15]We accept that this was a stiff sentence but we are not satisfied that it can be considered manifestly excessive. Given our views on the appropriate term, it is unnecessary for us to consider suspension. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk