R v Hasan Farooq [2026] EWCA Crim 901

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.

Neutral citation No. [2026] EWCA Crim 901

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Venue Royal Courts of Justice

Date Friday 26 June 2026

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Before

LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS

(Senior President of Tribunals)

MR JUSTICE MURRAY

MRS JUSTICE HEATHER WILLIAMS

Between

REXCrown

Between

HASAN FAROOQ

(The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies.)

__________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

_________

MR GERARD DORAN appeared for Appellant

_________

JUDGMENT

Approved

[1]This is an appeal against sentence which raises the issue about whether the sentence of immediate imprisonment imposed by the judge should have been suspended.

[2]The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence and therefore the victim of the offending has lifelong anonymity.

[3]On 3 February 2026 in the Crown Court at Bradford, the appellant, Mr Farooq, changed his plea of not guilty to guilty to an offence of sexual communication with a child, contrary to section 15A(1) and (3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That was after the cross-examination of the complainant at trial.

[4]The matter was then adjourned for reports, and on 17 April 2026, in the Crown Court at Bradford, Mr Farooq was sentenced to a sentence of 17 months' imprisonment, to be served immediately. A statutory victim surcharge and a sexual harm prevention order were imposed. Factual Background

[5]The relevant offending took place when Mr Farooq was aged between 18 and 20 years old (he is now 24) and his victim was aged between 11 and 13 years old. They first made contact over Twitter in relation to a shared interest in football. At that stage the appellant was 19, the complainant 12. Contact progressed from Twitter moving to WhatsApp and then Instagram. The appellant claimed to be in his early 20s and living in Birmingham and the complainant claimed that she was due to turn 14, whereas in fact she was 12 due to turn 13.

[6]Her phone was downloaded after the intervention of friends who had reported concerns to school and after her mother had noticed a change in her behaviour. There were thousands of messages between the appellant and the complainant. Many of the messages and voice notes were sexual in nature and in some of the recordings the appellant could be heard masturbating. There were sexual references and the appellant discussed the sexual acts he wished to perform upon the complainant. He sent a picture of a white male holding a penis and he induced the complainant to send an image of a female wearing underwear. The appellant responded to that image and indicated that he was going to masturbate over it. He then sent another image of a white male exposing his penis.

[7]After the intervention of police, the phone was taken away and looked at, but messages continued between the complainant and the appellant through an old phone that the complainant had. By this stage the appellant contended that he was no longer the original person known as ‘Kai’ but a new person called ‘Hasan’. He said that he was a friend of Kai's, and told the complainant that Kai had been assaulted, raped and hospitalised, and he created a back story about Kai. The complainant believed that story and was upset by it, crying to her mother, although her mother said that she had been groomed by Kai.

[8]A number of phones were seized, and the appellant was interviewed on 15 June 2023. He said he had a Twitter account. He had made contact with the complainant because she had commented on a post, said that she had been struggling and disclosed parts of her social life, and that he had intervened because he felt some responsibility to make sure that she was well. The sentence

[9]There was a pre-sentence report (PSR) that was produced in relation to the appellant. In support of the ground of appeal that this sentence should have been suspended, Mr Doran, to whom we are very grateful for his helpful written advice and succinct submissions this morning, noted that the author of the PSR had said:

"Mr Farooq had demonstrated genuine remorse and a willingness to comply with statutory requirements. In my professional view he is likely to engage in targeted intervention and there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation if managed in the community."

The author noted that while he was assessed as posing a medium risk of serious harm to children, there was no evidence of further offending or new safeguard concerns since his arrest.

[10]There was also a psychological report based on an examination carried out on 24 March 2026 via video-link where Dr Wright reported a history of depressive episodes, symptoms of ADHD and PTSD, although there was no formal diagnosis of either condition.

[11]There was a victim personal statement that was read to the judge demonstrating how the complainant had turned to self-harming, and how she had effectively lost a year at school and still suffered from the effects of the communications between her and the appellant.

[12]So far as is material, the judge went through the relevant offence-specific guideline. It was common ground that this was a category A1 offence with a starting point of 18 months. The judge said that he would have elevated that starting point to take account of the various aggravating features but having regard to the mitigation that had been advanced he did not do that. He also gave some modest credit for the late plea and imposed a sentence of 17 months. Although in the written grounds lodged on behalf of Mr Farooq it was contended that the sentence of 17 months was manifestly excessive and that the case merited a community order, those matters have not been pursued orally before us. In our judgment the judge's application of the offence-specific guideline was correct and a sentence of 17 months justified. Disposal of the appeal

[13]That still leaves the real issue on the appeal, which is whether or not the sentence should have been suspended. When granting leave, the single judge noted that it was at least arguable that the judge's failure to articulate fully the exercise he undertook called into question whether it was wrong in principle not to suspend the sentence of imprisonment.

[14]It is necessary to turn to what the judge said. At page 3C of the transcript he said this:

"The real question is whether you should be required, in the light of all that I have heard on your behalf and read concerning you, whether you should be required to serve that sentence immediately. I have carefully considered the submissions and the evidence that the - that your counsel has advanced on your behalf and I have [applied] my mind to the community and custodial sentences guidelines. I have come to the view that only an immediate custodial sentence is justified, by reason of your culpability and the nature of your offending. I can tell you this, that had you been charged with a more serious offence, you would have been visited with a much longer sentence. You should consider it your good fortune that you were not charged with such an offence on the evidence that the prosecution have. I hope you will learn the necessary lessons from your experience and will not trouble the criminal courts again."

The judge then went on to address ancillary orders.

[15]It is right to record that the judge did not go through all the terms of the relevant overarching guideline on community and custodial sentences, but the judge made specific reference to it and it is perfectly apparent that the judge had regard to the fact that many of the factors pointed away from an immediate sentence of imprisonment, in particular what the author of the PSR had noted, namely that there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

[16]It is apparent that the judge took the view that this offence was so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence could be justified. Having regard to the length of time over which this offending took place, having regard to the difference in age between Mr Farooq and the complainant, and having regard to the effect of the offending on the complainant, that was a reasonable judgment that the sentencing judge was entitled to make.

[17]So for all those reasons, and notwithstanding the skill with which the matter has been argued on behalf of Mr Farooq, we dismiss the appeal. 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