R v Mustaq Natha & Anor

Each appellant brings this appeal against sentence with the leave of the single judge.

On 18 November 2024, the day of their trial in the Crown Court at Preston, both appellants on re-arraignment pleaded guilty to an offence of false imprisonment (count 1). The appellant Mustaq Natha also pleaded guilty on re-arraignment on that day to count 2, an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The appellant Farhan Natha had pleaded guilty to count 2 and to an offence of criminal damage (count 3) at an earlier hearing on 11 January 2024.

On 17 March 2025 the appellants were each sentenced to 43 months' imprisonment on count 1 (the false imprisonment). Farhan Natha was further sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment concurrent on count 2 (the assault) with no separate penalty imposed for the criminal damage in count 3. Mustaq Natha received a concurrent sentence of 21 months' imprisonment for the assault. Both, therefore, received a total sentence of 43 months' imprisonment.

The appellants are father and son. The offences arose out of a dispute about monies owed to the appellant Farhan Natha. Farhan Natha operated The Ivy wedding venue in Blackburn. In June 2022 Raeesa Patel, the sister of Tawfeeq Patel (the victim in this case) held her wedding at that venue. She was unhappy at the level of service provided by The Ivy and the balance owing for the wedding was not paid.

Over the following weeks the appellant Farhan Natha sent Ms Patel's mother, Nacsana Patel, a series of text messages demanding the money he was owed. He told her that "his guys" would collect it and asked not to let things "become messy".

On 1 August 2002 the appellant Farhan Natha telephoned Nacsana Patel several times. She did not answer the calls. He sent her a text message demanding the money and told her, "I’m not playing nice any longer". He then went to her address and banged loudly on the door. The victim, Tawfeeq Patel, also lived at the house. Neither he nor his mother opened the door.

Between 20:00 and 21:00 that evening the appellant Farhan Natha telephoned Nacsana Patel 23 times. He then telephoned the victim's sister, saying that if she did not pay the money, he would smash the windows to her house and car. He said he wanted £3,125 that night. A recording of that call was played to the victim. Concerned about the threats and intending to resolve the situation, he drove to The Ivy.

CCTV captured events as they unfolded. The victim arrived at The Ivy at 22:30. Following a brief exchange at the door, he was confronted by both appellants in the car park. He was pushed by them and the gates to the car park were closed, enclosing the victim's car inside. The appellants then grabbed Mr Patel's T-shirt. The appellant Farhan Natha wrestled him to the ground, where both appellants and Farhan Natha's wife swarmed around him, kicking and punching him whilst he was on the floor. Over the following minutes the victim was repeatedly assaulted. He was pushed against the car park railings, knocked to the ground, and punched and kicked to the body. He attempted to run away but was pursued by the appellants and dragged back into the car park. He was then taken into the building and held against his will.

Whilst inside the venue, the victim was told he would have to stay until the money was paid. The appellants threatened to break his legs. At some stage the appellant Farhan Natha ripped one of the door handles from Mr Patel's car. They telephoned Nacsana Patel and told her they would harm her son if the money was not paid. She agreed to try to get the money and bring it to them. She then contacted the police.

The victim was held at The Ivy for approximately two hours. At around half past midnight the appellant Mustaq Natha said he could leave, and he drove home. He had sustained bruising to his ribs and face, bleeding in his eyes, and scratches and grazes to his head and knees. Police attended and took him to hospital. He had fortunately suffered no fractures and was later discharged with painkillers. The appellants were each arrested and made no comment in interview.

The appellant Farhan Natha relied on a basis of plea in which he described the victim attending his premises uninvited and unhappy. Farhan Natha had started a new business and refusal of payment risked liquidation. In the basis he accepted becoming frustrated and using physical violence on the victim causing minor injuries. He accepted detaining the victim for a short time, but this was not for exchange of the debt. They resolved their issues and the victim left on a handshake.

Both Mr Patel and Nacsana Patel provided impact statements. The victim spoke of how scared he was for his life when he was being held and repeated demands were being made of his family for money. He had subsequently suffered flashbacks and nightmares. He had not gone out for a time after the incident, either to work (which caused him financial difficulties) or to socialise. When he did, he found himself frequently looking over his shoulder. Nacsana Patel in her statement spoke of her fear for her son, difficulties in sleeping and her worries about her son going out again.

The appellant Mustaq Natha is now aged 58 years. He is of previous good character. He expressed remorse and shame for his actions to the author of the pre-sentence report. It was however her view that he demonstrated a significant deficiency in victim awareness and empathy and failed to comprehend the impact that his behaviour would have had on the victims. He further attempted to justify the assault by suggesting that the victim's behaviour in shouting and swearing provoked his response. He was found in the report to be at low risk of reoffending. The author concluded that an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate and commensurate with the offending, but he was suitable for a community penalty should the judge consider that appropriate.

This appellant placed character references before the Recorder which spoke of him in a positive light.

The appellant Farhan Natha is now aged 32 years. He has one previous conviction for driving with a proportion of cannabis above the specified limit, for which he was fined and disqualified from driving. Farhan Natha had written a letter to the judge in which he expressed remorse. In that letter he said that he had taken steps to better himself and his business in the time before sentence and expressed a wish to contribute positively to society. The judge additionally had character references submitted on his behalf which spoke positively about him.

The appellant Farhan Natha also expressed remorse to the author of the pre-sentence report. The author found that over the 8-week period prior to the offending he had struggled with the external pressures and stress which arose from his financial situation. He had failed to consider the impact of the threatening messages sent and the threats of violence made to the victim. His likelihood of reoffending was said to be medium. He was said to be suitable for a community order should the court consider an alternative to custody.

The Recorder approached the sentence of each of the appellants by treating count 1 (the false imprisonment) as the lead offence. She treated both the assault and criminal damage offences as aggravating factors of the false imprisonment. She found that the appellant Farhan Natha had a greater involvement in terms of the debt which was owed and because he had sent the text demanding money before the incident on 1 August.

The sentencing guideline for false imprisonment was not in force at the time of the sentence. The Recorder therefore applied the guideline on Overarching Principles and arrived at the sentences by a consideration of culpability and harm. On the question of culpability, the Recorder took into account the length of detention (two hours), which she described as not insignificant, and the circumstances of it. She recognised that the victim was not restrained during the course of it, but observed that he was dragged into the venue, where there were a group of people in addition to the appellants. She acknowledged that there was little violence once the victim was in the premises, but treated the assault outside, when he was assaulted persistently over a number of minutes including by being kicked with a shod foot, as an aggravating factor. The Recorder accepted that the incident was spontaneous. The offence, however, involved demands of money and threats that if it was not paid, he would be harmed. She found that on analysis of all of these factors the culpability of each appellant was medium.

On the question of harm, the Recorder took into account that immediately after the incident the victim felt bruising and pain and had suffered some longer-term effects. She accepted that it must have been a terrifying incident for him and his mother. She observed, however, that the level of psychological harm caused was not as high as the court often sees in similar cases.

The Recorder placed the assault, had it been a standalone offence, in category 2A of the relevant guideline. It was a case of high culpability as it was a prolonged and persistent assault committed by a group of three people where the victim was trapped in the car park and kicked with a shod foot whilst lying on the ground. It fell within category 2 harm as it fell between categories 1 and 3. This afforded a starting point of 18 months and a range of 26 weeks to 30 months' imprisonment.

In mitigation the Recorder took into account that the appellant Mustaq Natha was of previous good character and well regarded in the community. She noted his medical diagnosis of COPD. She further took into account that he cared with his wife for their adult disabled daughter.

In relation to the appellant Farhan Natha, the Recorder accepted that he was lightly convicted. She took into account his character references and all that was said in the pre-sentence report. She described him as a clever young man with a promising future which he had thrown away by the commission of these offences. The Recorder said that the least sentence she could impose on each appellant taking into account totality was 48 months' imprisonment after trial. She afforded each of them 10% credit for their guilty pleas on the day of trial. On count 2 she imposed a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment concurrent in the case of the appellant Mustaq Natha and 18 months' imprisonment concurrent in the case of Farhan Natha. The difference is explained by the amount of credit afforded to each by reason of the timing of his guilty plea.

The appellant Mustaq Natha submits that the sentence imposed upon him was manifestly excessive. Mr Stuart, who represents this appellant as he did in the court below, submits that the Recorder adopted too high a notional sentence after trial for offences which were not preplanned and which arose out of the nonpayment of a legitimate debt. He points out that Mustaq Natha was unaware of the previous calls during the course of the day about the debt and there was no criminal background to the offence. The injuries, he submits, were not severe. He also relies on the fact that Mustaq Natha was the person who told the victim to go after two hours.

Mr Stuart further submits that the Recorder failed to pay sufficient regard to the appellant's mitigation, in particular his age, good character and the effect of an immediate custodial sentence on his health and his ability to care for his disabled daughter. We are told that he has spent his time in custody well, he has enhanced prisoner status, and there have been no sanctions against him.

The appellant Farhan Natha also submits that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Ms Carroll, who represents the appellant today as she did in the court below, submits that the Recorder failed properly to weigh the relevant culpability factors in the appellant's case and came to too high a notional sentence given the level of harm. She has described what happened on that evening as the actions of a desperate family. Ms Carroll further submits that the Recorder failed to pay sufficient regard to the appellant's mitigation, which she submits was strong; in particular that he was effectively a man of previous good character, that the dispute with the victim's family related to nonpayment of a legitimate debt which placed significant financial strain on the appellant's business which was in its infancy, his remorse, the fact that his first child was due in September; and the delay in the case coming to trial. We are told that his son was born in September. It was difficult for the whole family that he was not present for the birth of his son - a matter that he will have to live with for the rest of his life. Ms Carroll submitted in her written grounds that the sentence should have been of a length which could and should have been suspended, although that was not pressed upon us today.

We have reflected on the submissions advanced on behalf of both appellants, but we find ourselves unable to accept them. The offences may have arisen out of the nonpayment of a legitimate debt but in our view this affords the appellants little, if any, mitigation. We agree with the Recorder that this was not the way to go about resolving that issue. The offences were serious. The victim went to the appellants' business address to try to resolve matters following verbal threats to his mother and sister. There he was assaulted by three individuals including these appellants, including by being kicked to the head whilst on the floor. He was fortunate not to have sustained more serious physical injury. Both he and his mother suffered a degree of psychological harm in consequence of what occurred. The appellants prevented the victim from leaving when he tried to escape. He was then held against his will for two hours whilst threats were made to him and to his family to try to force payment of the debt. A lengthy custodial sentence for the entire course of conduct was inevitable. It could not properly be of a length capable of suspension. In our view the Recorder's assessment of culpability and harm was beyond reproach. She identified the appropriate culpability factors and cannot properly be criticised for assessing the case as one of medium culpability. She was measured in her assessment of harm. Further, in our view the Recorder had proper regard to the significant mitigation advanced by each appellant and had those factors well in mind in reaching the sentence that she did. She had regard to and applied the principle of totality. We cannot accept that the sentence of 43 months' imprisonment for the totality of the offending imposed on either appellant was manifestly excessive. It was just and proportionate for the totality of this serious offending and these appeals against sentence are accordingly both dismissed.