APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY IBRAHIM AHMADI AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2016] HCJAC 7
HCA/2015/002488/XC
Lord Menzies
Lady Smith
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD MENZIES
in
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
by
IBRAHIM AHMADI
Appellant;
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent:
Appellant: Mitchell; Paterson Bell Solicitors
Respondent: Goddard; Crown Agent
7 January 2016
[1] The appellant Ibrahim Ahmadi appeared at Glasgow High Court on 8 July 2015 and after trial was found guilty of a charge of rape. He was aged 23 at the date of the offence. He had no analogous previous convictions and no outstanding cases and he had, as was acknowledged by the trial judge, what was described as a disturbed background having been brought up within Afghanistan and come to this country as an asylum seeker.
[2] The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment. In submissions to this court it was submitted that 7 years was excessive in the circumstances of this particular case. Counsel relied on two unreported cases in which it appears that a sentence imposed, in broadly similar circumstances, was 4 years’ imprisonment; in one of those cases the sentencing judge is noted in the media reporting of the case as saying that rapes of this type had to be taken seriously and the lowest possible sentence was 4 years’ imprisonment.
[3] We make it clear that we are not setting down, nor are we to be taken to be setting down, any sort of minimum or indeed any sort of maximum. We deal with this case and the circumstances of this case alone.
[4] Having regard to those circumstances it appears to us that a custodial sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment was indeed excessive in the circumstances of this case. The sentencing judge had before him a criminal justice social work report which assessed the appellant as being at high risk of sexual offending in the future and the author expresses the view that Mr Ahmadi is likely to re‑offend in a similar nature and there is a suggestion that the court might consider post‑custodial supervision. The sentencing judge was addressed on the question of extended sentence but does not appear to have given further consideration to that in his own reasoning.
[5] We are persuaded that a custodial sentence of 7 years in this case is excessive. We shall accordingly quash that sentence and substitute therefor an extended sentence in terms of section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The total term of that will be 7 years of which 5 years will be the custodial term and 2 years will be the extension period.