R v Mohammed Nazim Hussain [2026] EWCA Crim 1060

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.[2026] EWCA Crim 1060Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Thursday 18 June 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE COULSONMRS JUSTICE CUTTSHER HONOUR JUDGE LUCKING KC(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
MOHAMMED NAZIM HUSSAIN__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MS S EVANS appeared for Appellant_________JUDGMENT
[1]The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence.[2]The appellant is now 24. On 4 September 2025, in the Crown Court at Southwark, he was sentenced by HHJ Justin Cole ("the judge") for two sexual offences. For the offence of attempting to cause a child aged 13 to 15 to watch or look at an image of sexual activity, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (count 5), he was given an extended sentence, made up of 5 years and 4 months' custody and 4 years and 8 months by way of extended licence. For an attempt to engage in sexual communication with the same child (count 4) he was given a concurrent term of 12 months' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence with leave of the Single Judge. The Facts of the Offending[3]On 22 January 2024, the father of the 14-year-old female complainant confiscated his daughter's mobile phone following concerns by a family member that she was posting videos on TikTok that could be seen as sexual dancing. On 7 February 2024 the father decided to look through her phone before giving it back to her. On looking through it, he saw that she had received WhatsApp messages during the time that the phone had been confiscated (and which, as a result, she had not seen).[4]The messages had been sent by the appellant. In the first he said:
"Hey, [name] I just want to show you my sex tape right now with my little sister. We are sniffing cocaine and taking pills with oil and Vaseline all over us and I got your picture in the background ok and there's gonna be a lot of screaming but don't worry she's gonna be okay."
There then followed two short videos of a male masturbating.[5]The telephone number was investigated and led back to the appellant. He was arrested on 5 March 2024. Items at his address matched items in the background of the videos. The Sentencing Hearing[6]The appellant pleaded guilty to the two offences noted above at the first opportunity. He was sent to the Crown Court for sentencing. There were two elements of that hearing that were of particular importance: one was the appellant's previous convictions, the other were the contents of the Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”).[7]The appellant had an appalling record of previous convictions. Despite his young age, he had seven convictions for 14 offences from 2015 to 2025. Of most relevance to the sentencing exercise before the judge, in 2018 the appellant had been sentenced to a Hospital Order for two offences of rape. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order ("SHPO") was also made. It appears that the appellant was released from hospital as early as 2020 because, in October 2020, he committed a section 47 assault for which he received a suspended sentence. On the face of it, therefore, the Hospital Order had no effect at all.[8]In 2022 the appellant received a short sentence for battery and possessing a knife and, in 2023, the suspended sentence was activated as a result of his failure to comply with its requirements. In 2024 he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for two offences of breach of the SHPO that had been made at the same time as the Hospital Order. In 2025 he was sentenced to 30 months and 4 weeks' imprisonment for two more breaches of the SHPO, together with offences of making indecent photographs of children and an assault by beating of an emergency worker.[9]The PSR painted a dismal picture of the appellant: one of evasion, minimisation and denial. It is said that he had shown a blatant disregard for the restrictions imposed by community sentences and licence periods. He was assessed as posing "a very high risk to members of the public through sexual offending". He was also assessed as prone to further acts of violence and aggression, and thus the potential for serious harm through violence. Finally, he was assessed as posing "a high risk of sexual harm to children."[10]Count 5 was rightly taken as the lead offence. As the judge correctly noted, the underlying offence of causing a child to watch a sexual act (section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) carries a maximum term of 10 years' imprisonment. By reference to the Sentencing Guidelines, the judge put this offending in category 2A. The offence was category 2, because the sexual act in question was masturbation. The judge said that it was category A because of the significant disparity of age. In that regard the judge had referred to what this Court said in R v Brzozowski [2025] EWCA Crim 1113 at [35].[11]The Sentencing Guidelines recommend a starting point of 2 years for that offence and a recommended range of between 1 and 3 years. In the key passage in the sentencing remarks

the judge said this:

"The determinate part of your sentence will be 64 months, which is five years and four months. It is an eight-year sentence with full credit. However, this being a specified offence and the qualifying offence provisions applying, I do consider you dangerous for the reasons specified including your previous offences, the material found on your devices in breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, and the targeting of a child for sexual gratification. There really is a significant risk of further specified offences and thereby serious harm to the public which is highly likely only to escalate if at liberty in the foreseeable future."
[12]Initially, having found that the appellant was dangerous, the judge indicated an extended licence period of 8 years. However, following intervention by Ms Evans of counsel, that was properly corrected, because that would have produced a total sentence in excess of the statutory maximum of 10 years. The judge then adjusted the extension to one of 4 years and 8 months. The judge acknowledged that that was the maximum extension that could be imposed (presumably because the custodial element of the term together with the extension produced a total of 10 years, the statutory maximum for this offence). The Grounds of Appeal[13]On behalf of the appellant, Ms Evans submitted that the 8-year starting point on count 5 was manifestly excessive. First, she said that the judge failed to take sufficient account of the appellant's mitigation. Secondly, she argued that, because the total sentence was one of 10 years, there was no allowance for the appellant's guilty plea. Bound up with that submission was the separate point that the extended licence period was manifestly excessive. She made no separate submissions about the 12 month concurrent sentence for count 4.[14]We are grateful to Ms Evans for her submissions both in writing, and again orally this morning, which were both clear and concise. Discussion[15]In our view, the sentence on count 5 which totalled 10 years was manifestly excessive, largely for the reasons so cogently outlined by Ms Evans. There was no attempt by the judge to explain how he justified a starting point of 8 years for an offence which, by reference to the Sentencing Guidelines, carried an upper recommended term of 3 years' imprisonment. It is not possible to see from his sentencing remarks what allowance, if any, he made for the fact that this was an attempt, or for the appellant's mitigation (such as it was). Moreover, the effect of his decision to pass an extended period of licence of 4 years and 8 months on top of the custodial term of 5 years and 4 months appeared solely designed to ensure that he passed the maximum term permitted by law for this offence (10 years), which in turn meant that he gave no allowance at all for the points of mitigation or the reduction for the guilty plea.[16]It is therefore necessary for this Court to carry out a resentencing exercise on count 5.[17]It is now agreed that this was a category 2A offence. Ms Evans had argued before the judge that this was not category 2A because there was no significant disparity in age. However, in her sensible written advice she conceded that the point was no longer arguable in the light of Brzozowski.[18]We agree with the judge that by reason of the appellant's appalling record of similar offending, this was a case where the sentencing judge was quite entitled to set the Sentencing Guidelines aside, and go well beyond the upper limit of the recommended range. In our view, even taking into account that this was an attempt, that record meant that a starting point of around 5½ years was justified. As to mitigation, we consider that, in view of the chances which the appellant had been given by the criminal justice system, including the Hospital Order and the suspended sentence, and his singular failure to take any of them, the mitigation was modest. Mitigation would reduce the notional term to one of, say, 5 years.[19]The appellant was then entitled to full credit for his guilty plea. That would then reduce the sentence to one of 40 months' imprisonment. The 12 month concurrent term on count 4 would remain unchanged.[20]That leaves the question of dangerousness. Ms Evanshad argued before the judge that no such finding should be made. The Single Judge said that to the extent that that argument was maintained, it was doomed to fail. In any event, as we have said, Ms Evans conceded in her advice that the judge was entitled to find that the appellant was dangerous. In the light of the PSR, we entirely agree with that: indeed, we consider that no other conclusion is appropriate.[21]As to the period of the extension, we consider that, in all the circumstances of the case, the extended licence period should be one of 30 months. Disposal[22]Accordingly on count 5, we quash the sentence of 5 years 4 months' custody with an extended licence period of 4 years and 8 months. Instead, we replace it with a sentence of 40 months' custody with an extended licence period of 30 months. The sentence on count 4, namely 12 months concurrent, remains the same. To that extent therefore, this appeal against sentence succeeds. 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