R v Navjot Singh & Anor

This is the hearing of an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer sentences which the Solicitor General considers to be unduly lenient. It raises a point about the correct categorisation of a sexual assault.

The respondents are Sadnam Singh, who is 29 years old, having been born on 31 July 1996, and Navjot Singh, who is 28 years old, having been born on 28 September 1998. Both were of previous good character before the commission of these offences.

The respondents were convicted on 2 April 2025, following a trial before His Honour Judge Jefferies KC and a jury, of two offences each of sexual assault (so a total of four sexual assaults) contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The victim of the offending, who has life-long anonymity pursuant to the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, was aged 14 years old and was in her home at the time of the offending.

It is apparent that after the imposition of the sentence (and both respondents had spent time in custody before that sentence) the respondent Sadnam Singh has agreed to be deported and has been deported. That point has been raised by the Registrar in a note to us and we have been referred to the case of R v Bilalaj [2023] EWCA Crim 254. In Bilalaj the offender had been voluntarily deported and was no longer in custody. The court said in paragraph 20 of that judgment:

There is no further case law to which we have been referred on the effect of a deportation in relation to whether an Attorney-General's Reference should continue. In our judgment, where the respondent has been removed from the jurisdiction, and therefore is not going to serve any more time as a matter of practical reality, there are issues about whether the courts should be entertaining such applications. This is in circumstances where the respondent's interests are represented by counsel who was fully instructed at the time that the reference was put in, but is now no longer instructed because they have not been able to take instructions. That is Ms Dobson's position this morning, who we are very grateful to for her helpful submissions.

In these circumstances we are going to adjourn the Reference for Mr Sadnam Singh to consider what should be the approach of the court where one part of the government seeks to increase a sentence that will never be served because another part of the government has, for understandable reasons, removed that individual. The matter is to be listed for two hours, and there will be skeleton arguments on both sides to advise us on the relevant principles to be applied by this court in such situations.

So far as Mr Navjot Singh is concerned, the position is more straightforward. He is here. He has been ably represented by Mr Holding, who is fully instructed. We will consider, therefore, the Reference. For the reasons that follow, we will grant leave for the Reference.

On 7 February 2024 the victim of this offending was at home. As we have already indicated, she was 14 years old. Her mother had left to go to work and worked nearby. Her brother had also left and so she was alone in the house. Her mother was expecting a TV stand to be delivered, and a delivery driver and the driver's mate (both the respondents) called to tell her that they were coming to deliver. The mother then told the victim of the offending to stay at home until the delivery was made. When the delivery arrived, the victim of the offending was still in her pyjamas. She stepped back on to the stairs, where she was effectively stuck on the stairs because the respondents brought the box in. There was some confusion as they seemed to think they should take the box upstairs. We have had an opportunity to see a video compilation from CCTV footage from the entry system.

The victim then went upstairs because she was effectively blocked on to the stairs, and the respondents followed her, carrying the package. She assumed they would leave the box on the landing but they took it into her bedroom. After a period of silence in the bedroom they asked her her name and told her that she was pretty. They then said, "Is that it?" and the victim said, "Yes". Mr Sadnam Singh asked, "Am I not gonna get anything?" and "Are we not gonna get anything?" Mr Sadnam Singh pulled the victim towards him as if to hug her. He grabbed her bottom over clothing. She froze. He asked for a kiss and then forcibly kissed her (count 2). She tried to fight him off, but he was bigger and stronger than her. He pushed her against the wall and put his hands down her pants, touching her bottom over her knickers but under the outer clothing (count 1). The victim said she was aged 14, but the respondents laughed. They grabbed her pyjama top and tried to pull her top down to remove it. She tried to push their hands away. One of the men asked the victim if there was anyone else in the house and the victim said her brother was at home. Mr Sadnam Singh, on hearing this, went down the stairs and tried to get out. The victim was in the doorway to her bedroom. Mr Navjot Singh, still in the bedroom, said, "Come here". She refused. He grabbed the back of her neck, kissed her on the lips and grabbed her. She tried to push him away and turned her head away. He bit her on the lips, before kissing her neck and cheek (count 3). He then put his hands on her bottom and grabbed her breasts over clothing (count 4). Navjot Singh then stopped and then followed Mr Sadnam Singh down the stairs. Before leaving through the front doors the offenders laughed and said "bye". It is perfectly apparent that immediately upon their departure the victim appeared to, as the judge put it, collapse. The respondents were said to have smiled as they went out - not that we were able to determine that from the short video clip that we saw.

The victim phoned her mother. That call was about 6 minutes after the mother had called the victim to tell her that the delivery would be coming. The victim was crying and said she had been touched up by the two delivery men.

The respondents returned to the van. Navjot Singh came back to the front door and started banging on it. That is, it seems, because it appeared that there were instructions either to erect the screen or the stand, or because he needed a signature. The mother returned. Mr Navjot Singh claimed he needed a signature. The mother refused and said she would call the police, immediately reporting that she had been told by her daughter that she had been touched up. The respondents said something and drove away. The mother saw that the victim was in tears and distressed.

The police contacted the respondents' employers, and the respondents attended the police station the same morning and were arrested. After trial, sentencing was adjourned for reports and victim personal statements.

The victim said that she felt the need to self-harm, sometimes every day. She felt worthless, conflicted and confused. She feared going outside and could not stand being alone because she was terrified that the respondents might come back. She was unable to answer the door. She could not go back to her bedroom and slept with her mother until they were able to order new furniture and rearrange her bedroom so it did not seem the same place where everything had happened. She felt like she was having a panic attack every time she went in there. Her school life was massively impacted. She fell so far behind at school that she felt she would not pass her GCSEs.

Her mother in her victim personal statement said that the victim had previously been top of her class at school and doing all her homework, but since the incident had rarely gone out, her grades had dropped and she rarely went to school. The mother also described the victim's self-harming behaviour.

Pre-sentence reports were obtained on the respondents, but they denied the offence and accused the victim of fabricating the story and so were of little assistance. Both pointed out the effect of any sentence on their families.

When sentencing, the judge said:

The offence specific guideline harm category 1 is where there is severe psychological harm or physical harm. The guideline takes into account a basic level of psychological harm inherent in the nature of the offending, and it is common ground that the victim had suffered severe psychological harm.

Category 2 for harm is a touching of naked genitalia, a prolonged assault, additional degradation or the victim being particularly vulnerable. It was pointed out in submissions before the judge and before us that none of those category 2 features were present.

A culpability A factor is that the offender acts together with others to commit the offence. There is a separate category A factor being abuse of trust, but there is a dropdown showing for that to apply there must be something giving rise to a significant level of responsibility towards the victim on which the victim was entitled to rely.

Culpability B provides that the factors in culpability A are not present.

A category 1A offence has a 4-year starting point with a range of 3-7 years, and a category 1B offence has a starting point of 2 years 6 months with a range of 2-4 years. The judge’s reference to a 2 year starting point seems to have been a reference to the starting point for category 2A offending.

Aggravating factors in this case were the facts that: this victim was young (being aged 14); she was on her own; she was in her own home; and in her own bedroom.

There are important mitigating factors: the respondent had no previous convictions, they were in work; and they were responsible for providing for their families.

The principles to be applied on any reference have been summarised on numerous occasions. The judge at first instance is particularly well placed to assess the weight to be given to competing factors in considering the sentence, particularly if that judge was the trial judge. A sentence is only unduly lenient when it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge at first instance might reasonably consider appropriate. Leave to refer a sentence should not be granted in borderline cases. Section 36 of the 1988 Act is designed to deal with cases where judges have fallen into gross error. Even if the court considers a sentence to be unduly lenient, the court retains a discretion as to whether to exercise its power.

So far as the submissions before us were concerned Ms Faure-Walker on behalf of the Solicitor General points to the fact that this was near to being an abuse of trust, albeit perhaps not an abuse of trust, under the guidelines. This was plainly category 1A and not category 2B or 2A or any other category. There were important aggravating factors. Mr Holding on behalf of Mr Navjot Singh notes that the judge was the trial judge and submitted that there was no abuse of trust within the meaning of the guideline. This is, properly analysed, to be somewhere between categories 1A and 1B. There were mitigating factors. The sentence overall was not unduly lenient. We deal with the points as they have been raised before us.

First of all, we agree with both parties in their final submissions that this is not an abuse of trust for the purposes of the guidelines. This was opportunistic offending by delivery men, but they did not have a significant level of responsibility to the victim, within the meaning of the guideline. There are very important aggravating features: there was a young victim who was 14; she was alone at home; and in her own bedroom. It seems likely that some of those factors contributed to the severe psychological effect of the offence, but they are separate aggravating features.

Secondly, this is category 1A offending. This is not offending that is in any sense in any other category. It is category 1 harm because there was a severe psychological effect, indeed a catastrophic effect, on the victim. There was a culpability A factor, because there were two men acting together against a 14-year-old girl. The judge was right to say that any approach to guidelines must be undertaken with care, and we have reflected on the submission made by Mr Holding this morning that cases can straddle roles like in drug cases. In our judgment, however, the judge was wrong to find that this case was not a clear case of category 1A offending. That is why the judge started with a sentence of 3 years rather than the 4-year starting point that he should have done. The judge then seemed to indicate that he had taken into account the separate aggravating factors in taking up the sentence from what he said was 2 years up to 3 years, but that would have meant that the starting point was 2 years and not 3 years. It is apparent that those important aggravating factors were not reflected in the sentence. In our judgment they would add at least a year to the overall sentence. There were also important mitigating factors in this particular case being: the absence of previous convictions; the work being carried out by the offenders; and the effect on their families on any sentence of imprisonment. In our judgment the appropriate sentence would have been one of 4 years.

In those circumstances, in our judgment, this was not only a lenient sentence, but it was unduly lenient. The judge went wrong by considering that this was not category 1A offending whereas in our judgment it was. In all those circumstances, so far as the respondent Mr Navjot Singh is concerned, we, having granted leave, allow the Reference and increase his sentence from the sentence of 30 months on count 4 (which was made up of the 3-year starting point with 6 months off for mitigation) and substitute a sentence of 4 years (or 48 months). Count 3 will remain concurrent as before, and all other consequential orders (including days spent on remand) will remain as before.