R v Ijaz Saeed

After a summary trial before the Leeds Magistrates' Court, Ijaz Saeed, who was then aged 40, was convicted of offences of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, contrary to section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, and two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. On 25 July 2024, he was committed for sentence to the Crown Court pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020. On 16 September 2024, in the Crown Court at Leeds, Recorder Nathan Moxon sentenced Mr Saeed to 40 months' imprisonment for controlling or coercive behaviour and shorter concurrent terms of imprisonment for the two assault offences. In addition, the Recorder made a restraining order and imposed the victim surcharge.

Leave to appeal against sentence was refused on the papers by Sir Nigel Davis and Mr Saeed now renews his application before the Full Court.

All of these offences were committed against the applicant's former partner, Cheryl Smith. During their relationship the applicant became increasingly controlling. He controlled Ms Smith's use of her mobile telephone and her use of social media. He required her to delete men's contact details. He prevented her from going out and told her what to wear. He was often verbally abusive towards her, calling her "a slag" and a drug addict. He threatened to have her sectioned.

There was violence throughout the relationship. The applicant regularly threatened and punched Ms Smith in the face. In March 2021, Ms Smith ended up on the floor with the applicant standing over her. The applicant punched and kicked her to the ribs. When he refused to take her, Ms Smith managed to get herself to hospital where it was noted that she had very badly bruised ribs. It took around 12 weeks for her to recover from her injuries.

In April 2024 the applicant punched Ms Smith to the ribs and pushed her into a wardrobe. He told her to get out of the house. She spent the night in some local woods before calling her daughter in the morning. Ms Smith's daughter found her curled up in a ball crying hysterically. She had bruising and swelling to the left side of her forehead and to her ribs.

In her victim personal statement, Ms Smith described the profound effect that the applicant's actions have had upon her. She felt worthless and unloved. She described herself as paranoid and scared. She only went out if she had her dog with her and she constantly checked over her shoulder. Her sleep was affected.

In passing sentence, the judge considered the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for offences of controlling or coercive behaviour, assault and offences involving domestic abuse. Further, he considered the question of totality. As to the offence of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour, the judge found that the offence was higher culpability given the fact that the conduct was persistent over a number of years, involved multiple methods to control Ms Smith, and was intended to humiliate and degrade her. Further, he found that the offence involved higher harm, in that the applicant caused Ms Smith very serious harm and distress which has had a substantial adverse effect upon her. The starting point was therefore 2½ years' imprisonment with a category range of 1 to 4 years.

Turning to the two assault offences, the judge found that these were medium culpability offences. The 2021 assault was a category 1 offence, in that the applicant used his fists and feet to inflict injury and it took Ms Smith a number of weeks to recover. The starting point was therefore 18 months' imprisonment with a category range of 9 months to 2½ years. The 2024 assault was a category 2 offence. The starting point was therefore 9 months with a category range up to 18 months' imprisonment.

The Recorder took the controlling or coercive behaviour as the lead offence, and said that he would pass a sentence that reflected the applicant's overall criminality. He therefore treated the assaults as aggravating features of the offence. Further, the offence was aggravated to some extent by the applicant's previous convictions, albeit the offences were of some age and dissimilar.

The Recorder found minimal evidence of remorse. He observed that the applicant had denied the offences at trial and he agreed with the author of the pre-sentence report that the applicant's primary focus was on the negative impact that the offences had had on himself. The applicant had sought to blame Ms Smith. Further, the pre-sentence report identified a high risk of future violence and a medium risk of serious harm to future intimate partners.

By way of mitigation, the judge considered the progress that the applicant was making in custody and his own poor mental health, which the judge observed did not affect culpability but would make prison harder for him. The judge also took into account current prison conditions and the character references before the court.

By this appeal the applicant seeks to argue that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient consideration was given to totality.

In refusing leave to appeal sentence, the Single Judge said:

We agree. This was sustained and serious offending in the context of an intimate relationship. Particularly serious violence was used in 2021 and these offences have had a serious impact upon the applicant's former partner. There is no merit whatever in this appeal and we refuse the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and we direct a loss of time order of 28 days.