R v Najib Arab

The provisions of section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 are engaged in this case because the victim is aged 17, having been born on 4 July 2008. Restrictions imposed under section 45 in respect of a victim, witness or defendant apply until that individual reaches the age of 18. Restrictions imposed under section 45A in respect of a victim or witness apply for life. An order under section 45 was made in relation to the victim, who we will refer to as "the complainant" in proceedings in the Crown Court in the following terms: No matter relating to the youth may be published that would identify them, including their name, address, any educational establishment or any workplace they attend and any picture of them. This order lasts until the youth reaches the age of 18. The complainant's name and age is not to be publicised and that order remains in force

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal the imposition of an extended determinate sentence of 9 years pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The sentence comprised a custodial term of 7 years and an extended licence period of 2 years. The applicant's sentence was for an offence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 of requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour contrary to section 1(1) (b) of that Act.

The sentence was imposed in the Crown Court sitting at Cardiff before Her Honour Judge Crowther on 1 July 2025 following a trial. The applicant had earlier pleaded guilty to two offences of being concerned in the supply of controlled Class B drugs (cannabis and ketamine) to another on the first day of trial, for which he received concurrent sentences of 10 months.

The facts are these. The complainant was a vulnerable, looked-after 15-year-old girl in care, who was given the applicant's telephone number as someone who could supply her and her friends with cannabis when they went to Cardiff. The applicant arranged to meet the complainant after she had sent him her photograph, at his request. He told her he was 17 after she had told him that she was 16. In fact he was 14 years older than her at 29 years old.

The complainant was seduced by the applicant. At first she was flattered by his attention, his apparent wealth and his ability to provide her with drugs, food and affection, and she spent more and more time with him over the following weeks. In fact she was being groomed by him and was inveigled into preparing and bagging up cannabis and ketamine and being used as a drugs courier to make deliveries for him.

The complainant was manipulated into becoming increasingly dependent on the applicant and working for him in his drugs operation. She was left in the flat for periods of time, unable to leave as it was a self-locking door and she had no key. The flat was an unpleasant place, dirty and infested with vermin. She was isolated. She did not know the city of Cardiff, it was 30 miles from her children's home and nor did she know anyone in Cardiff who could help her.

The applicant took the complainant to crack cocaine and heroin dens, although he did not provide her with Class A drugs or involve her in the preparation and supply of those drugs.

Over a period of seven weeks the applicant took increasing advantage of the complainant. By this time she was becoming scared of him. He was making her work for his drugs operation through fear and manipulation. He wrongly caused her to feel indebted to him when he was the one exploiting her. He had shown her videos of him assaulting people in public places and she knew that he carried a knife and she was fearful. She found herself unable to get out of the situation she had found herself in. After the complainant had been missing from her children's home for three days on the last occasion she went to Cardiff, she was reported missing. The police were able to track her down and found her at the applicant's flat and she was eventually rescued.

The applicant has previous convictions from 2018 for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs and possession of a bladed article in a public place.

He had had a difficult childhood growing up in Afghanistan. He told the author of his pre-sentence report that his father was killed fighting for the Taliban and he only escaped being recruited as a Taliban fighter himself when his mother paid for him to be smuggled to the UK as a teenage refugee.

The sentencing judge did not accept the submissions that the applicant was himself being exploited by others and she rejected his portrayal of himself as a victim subject to drug debts. Instead the judge found that he was the one preying on others, such as the complainant in this case, and that he was using her in his drug selling business. His drug dealing was clearly profitable and he bought himself high-end designer clothes and a watch worth thousands of pounds which was inconsistent of his being in hock to drug debts. He appeared to have a care-free lifestyle and took boastful selfies holding bundles of cash.

He was assessed as dangerous within the meaning of the Sentencing Act 2020 in the pre-sentence report and the judge found that he was dangerous. There is no challenge to that finding.

In very clear and well-structured sentencing remarks the judge broadly accepted the defence submissions that the offence fell within category 3B of the Sentencing Council Guidelines, with a starting point of 6 years and a range of 5-8 years. The judge then made an upward adjustment from the starting point to 7½ years to reflect the very many aggravating features that applied, such as his previous convictions, the drug offences on counts 2 and 3, and bearing in mind the totality principle. She considered the extent of the harm to the complainant, placing the offence towards the higher end of category 3, and took account of the moving victim personal statement and the anxiety of the complainant about her manipulation/ She was understandably particularly troubled by the deception of being led to believe that the applicant was two years older than her when in fact the age gap was 14 years. The many factors placed the offence squarely in medium culpability level B. The judge then made a downward adjustment to reach a final determinate sentence of 7 years to reflect the applicant's limited mitigation.

She also found there to be a significant risk that the applicant will cause serious harm by the commission of further specified offences, requiring a 2-year extended sentence. There is no criticism of this conclusion which was fully justified to the judge on the evidence.

For the drug offences, the judge imposed 10 months concurrent sentences in accordance with the guidelines and with the applicable 10% reduction for the guilty plea on the first day of trial. There is no challenge, and nor could there be, to the imposition of the extended sentence, nor the drug offence sentences or the imposition of a slavery and trafficking prevention order.

It is not reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The sentence imposed was entirely in accordance with the evidence, all the circumstances of the offences, the offender and the very serious impact on the vulnerable complainant and in accordance with the Sentencing Council Guidelines. Ten-year-old cases such as R v Zielinski that were handed down before the Sentencing Council Guidelines on Modern Slavery offences came into force are of very limited value and do not assist the applicant in this case. The application for leave and legal assistance is therefore refused.