R v Mahmood Hamad

The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.

On 20 June 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Southwark before His Honour Judge Cole and a jury, the applicant was convicted of one offence of assault by penetration (count 1) and one offence of intentional strangulation (count 2).

On 4 October 2024, he was sentenced by the trial judge to a 12 year extended sentence, comprising a custodial term of seven years and an extended licence period of five years, on count 1, and to a concurrent term of 18 months' imprisonment on count 2.

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. Where 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 the offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.

The complainant is a Spanish national who was working as an escort. On 7 April 2023, she was booked to attend the applicant's address. She was driven to the address by a driver from the agency, who was to wait outside. When they arrived, the complainant called the applicant who came down to the street to let her in. As the applicant led the complainant up to his flat, he asked her to walk in front of him. The complainant wanted the applicant to walk in front of her. The applicant asked the complainant how old she was, four of five times. When she told him that she was 23, the applicant asked if she was sure because he really liked young girls.

When they reached his flat, the applicant insisted that the complainant went in first. The complainant noted that the property was dark and appeared derelict. She went to turn on a light, but the applicant said, "Don't bother – you won't find any light – there is no light in here".

The applicant asked the complainant whether she used marijuana. He said that he did because he was from Egypt and that everyone smokes marijuana in Egypt. The complainant said that she did not drink or take drugs. The applicant then said, "Let me touch you" and began to touch her. Due to the applicant's demeanour and behaviour, the complainant became worried. She said that she had left something in the car and suggested that they go back down to collect it. However, the applicant pushed the complainant against the wall and ripped her one-piece outfit. He tried to put his fingers in the complainant's vagina but she pushed him away. The applicant then immediately penetrated her vagina with his fingers. The complainant tried to push him away and make a phone call. The applicant pushed the complainant to the floor in the hall and fell on top of her. He continued to penetrate her vagina with his fingers. He put his other hand against her throat so that she could not get away.

The complainant tried to push the applicant off and continued to attempt to call her agency. She was screaming and the applicant told her not to scream. Every time the complainant tried to escape, the applicant exerted more force to push her down. At some point, the complainant managed to make a call to her agency and said, "Someone can you help me?" The applicant tried to cover the complainant's mouth and he grabbed her telephone from her. As he did this, the complainant managed to open the door. The applicant pulled her back by her hair. The complainant managed to get her leg in the doorway so that the applicant could not close the door. The complainant started to scream louder, shouting, "Someone help me please". The complainant managed to get free and she ran down the stairs. The applicant ran after her. The complainant fell and the applicant then pulled her back by her jacket and her hair. He pulled her up three steps, but the complainant held onto a wooden bar. The applicant slipped and the complainant then managed to run down the stairs.

The applicant returned to his flat and the complainant contacted her agency and went to her driver, who was waiting for her. A short while later, they saw the applicant leave the block of flats. He was wearing a long jacket and a cap. They decided to follow him and both got out of the car. The complainant struck the applicant in the face with a perfume bottle before going back to the car. The complainant's agency advised that they should return to the area of the applicant's home and wait there for the police.

After the incident, the complainant reported that her foot hurt and that she was suffering from a burning sensation to her vagina.

Police were called shortly before 2 am and they attended the address. They located the applicant nearby and he was arrested. He had a laceration to his cheek and claimed that he had fallen over. In interview, he claimed that he could not remember the night in question due to alcohol. He said that as far as he was aware, nobody had come to his house that night and that he had done nothing wrong. When he was charged, he said, "This isn't even a sexual offence. That girl is an escort. I was drunk."

In sentencing the applicant, the learned judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence report. The author of the report referred to the fact that although the applicant had previous convictions, including for robbery, using threatening words and behaviour and possession of an offensive weapon, the current matters represent an escalation of his offending behaviour. The author referred to the applicant's lack of regard for the issue of consent and his distorted thinking around sex, and that appropriate relationships remained an area of concern. There exists the possibility of the applicant repeating such behaviour. His lack of consequential thinking and lack of victim empathy remained significant areas of concern.

Assessing dangerousness, the author states this:

In sentencing the applicant, the learned judge took a starting point of six years' custody by reference to category 2B of the relevant sentencing guideline for assault by penetration which, after taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, he increased to seven years. That was his assessment of the appropriate custodial term.

The aggravating factors included the conviction on count 2 (strangulation) and the previous convictions.

The learned judge then considered dangerousness. He concluded that the applicant was dangerous, such that an extended determinate sentence was appropriate. He said:

On behalf of the applicant, Mr Tony Montgomery, for whose submissions both in writing and orally today we are very grateful, submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive when one considers the facts and circumstances, and the lack of relevant antecedents for a 36 year old man. He submits that the context, the short-lived nature of the offending and the relative lack of distress caused to the victim all point to the fact that the judge should have fixed a much shorter sentence than the 12 year extended sentence. In addition, he submits that the judge failed to reflect the element of delay in the case, either adequately or at all.

In refusing leave to appeal the single judge stated:

It is sufficient for us to indicate that we agree with the single judge and with the reasons which she expressed.

This renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is accordingly refused.