[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Haroon, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 466 (02 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/466.html Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 466

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT ISLEWORTH
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE JOHNSON) [T20237062]

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		2 April 2025

1. On 31 January 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Isleworth before His Honour Judge R Johnson and a jury, the applicant (then aged 18) was convicted of the offence of manslaughter. On 10 June 2024, he was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 14 years' detention, pursuant to section 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising a custodial term of nine years' detention and an extended licence period of five years.

MR JUSTICE BRYAN:

2. On 31 January 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Isleworth before His Honour Judge R Johnson and a jury, the applicant (then aged 18) was convicted of the offence of manslaughter. On 10 June 2024, he was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 14 years' detention, pursuant to section 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising a custodial term of nine years' detention and an extended licence period of five years.
3. The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following a refusal by the single judge.
4. We turn to the facts of the applicant's offending. On 17 August 2021, the applicant (then aged 16) and Kaydee Onyimo (then aged 19) came across 61 year old Mehmood Shamshi while he was sitting on the pavement in Staines Road, Hounslow. Mr Shamshi had been drinking alcohol with friends throughout the evening and was very intoxicated. There was CCTV footage of him falling to the floor in a local Tesco store earlier on that evening. By the time the applicant and Onyimo found Mr Shamshi at 10.30 pm, he was alone.
5. CCTV footage captured the applicant forcefully kick Mr Shamshi to the head, causing him to fall backwards and hit his head on the pavement. Mr Shamshi lay prone on the ground for approximately 20 seconds before the applicant then struck him again to the head or body.
6. Two minutes later Onyimo stamped on the prone Mr Shamshi to the area of his right upper leg. The pair left the immediate scene shortly thereafter.
7. Passers-by came across Mr Shamshi at around 10.43 pm and called the emergency services. The applicant and Onyimo remained nearby before they left in a taxi.
8. Mr Shamshi was taken to West Middlesex Hospital where his condition deteriorated. Sadly he died on 21 August 2021, having suffered a subdural haematoma. He was a man with numerous vulnerabilities. The evidence before the court was that the force required to produce the injury was moderate.
9. On Friday 27 August 2020, during a counselling session appointment at the Heart of Hounslow Medical Centre, the applicant told his therapist that he thought he had killed someone. He said that he had a fight with a man he believed to be a paedophile and who had looked at his sister's bottom. Police were contacted and the applicant was arrested at his home address on 28 August.
10. During his police interview the applicant gave a prepared statement denying the offence and denying that he had made any disclosures about killing someone to his counsellor. He then gave "No comment" answers to all questions that were put to him.
11. Following a trial, the applicant was convicted of the manslaughter of Mr Shamshi. The co-defendant Onyimo, was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Mr Shamshi.
12. There were two victim impact statements from Mr Shamshi's long term partner. She explained that Mr Shamshi was known by those close to him as "Shazi". He had a 15½ year old daughter to whom he had been a brilliant father. He was killed at the very bus stop at which he would drop his daughter off for school every day. The victim impact statement spoke of the devasting effect Shazi's death had had upon his daughter, both emotionally and in terms of her being unable to sit her GCSEs. She had gone from being a bubbly and social teenager with lots of friends, to someone who now rarely went out of the house and kept herself to herself. His partner still lives in the area, and she had to endure relieving Shazi's last movements as a result of watching the CCTV that captured events in an area she knows well. She found the trial mentally and physically straining but felt that she had to attend to update Shazi's family who come from Pakistan.
13. In her second victim impact statement, Shazi's partner expressed herself in terms which showed an impressive generosity of spirit, as the judge himself noted, with her stating:

"I understand that no one will replace Shazi in my daughter's life and that we will have to deal with this for the rest of our lives. But for these boys I wish that this episode leaves them to reflect on their lives and strive toward a better future for themselves. I am not their parents but I hope they are encouraged to live a better life, seek education, and come away from their criminal ways to live a productive and kind life."

14. Despite his young age, the applicant was very far being of previous good character. He had three convictions for six offences, spanning from 3 August 2020 to 19 April 2022. His relevant convictions included offences of common assault (2020), possessing an offensive weapon in a public place (2020), using threatening words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provocation of violence (2020), and possession of a bladed article in a public place (2022).
15. There was a pre-sentence report before the court. When meeting with the author thereof, the applicant accepted that he had kicked Mr Shamshi, but said that it was on only one occasion and also that Onyimo had initially verbally abused Mr Shamshi, and that he felt a need to impress his co-defendant, though he said that the decision to kick him was entirely his own. He admitted, after viewing the CCTV footage, that Mr Shamshi's head could be seen bouncing off the pavement after he hit him. He said that he felt particularly guilty as his actions had destroyed a family and taken a father away from their child, and he expressed remorse and empathy for the victim's family.
16. The applicant has had a traumatic upbringing in which he witnessed, and was the victim of, domestic abuse from a young age. At the time of the offence he was 16 years old and was involved with an older negative peer group in the form of a drug dealing gang. He had been referred to Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) due to family issues and violence he had himself suffered (having been stabbed in the hand when he was 14 years of age and stabbed again in 2022). The author of the pre-sentence report considered it possible that anger management issues underpinned his offending, and that the applicant had sought to punish Mr Shamshi for what he perceived as inappropriate behaviour towards his sister.
17. The author identified that the manslaughter offence was part of an emerging pattern of violent offending behaviour linked to his chosen lifestyle and associates, and that his actions were indicative of an increased seriousness and increased risk of serious harm. The author considered that the applicant posed a high risk of serious harm to the public, the risk was at its greatest when the applicant was in the community and associating with offending peers. Notwithstanding an expressed desire to address his behaviour, it was noted that clinical and actuarial risk assessment tools suggested that the applicant posed a medium risk of violent re-offending, and the author also considered there to be a medium risk of serious harm to and from other prisoners. The author expressed the view that, bearing in mind the factors discussed throughout the report, the court might wish to impose an extended determinate sentence if they were of the opinion that the applicant was a dangerous offender.
18. There was also a psychiatric report dated 3 August 2023 (pre-trial), and an addendum psychiatric report dated 1 June 2024 (before sentence), each from Dr Ian Cumming. He identified that the applicant had been groomed into drug dealing by a local gang and that all his teenage years were about impressing them and needing their validation. Following the stabbing when he was 14, he had had flashbacks, and his seeing CAMHS allowed him to speak about what he had been through. When he had been previously arrested for possession with intent to supply drugs, he had himself been in debt to the gang as a result of a time when he had lost product and money. In his first report Dr Cumming found the applicant fit to plead and to stand trial. He considered that the applicant was a classic example of someone who was vulnerable through childhood trauma being exposed to the tactics and culture of being part of a gang. He found evidence of post traumatic stress disorder with accompanying elements of depression and anxiety. However, Dr Cumming concluded that no clear understanding of any mental health defence to a charge of murder had emerged.
19. In his addendum report after the applicant's conviction, a further account of the offending was given by the applicant to Dr Cumming, and reference was made to incidents that had occurred whilst the applicant was in prison, including him being threatened in the showers after he saw a fight between other prisoners. When he saw Dr Cumming on 30 May 2024, the applicant had said to him that his mood was very low and that he was paranoid about his safety. He had also had difficulty sleeping. He stated that he had not used illegal drugs in prison. Dr Cummings repeated his opinions from his earlier report that the applicant was someone who had experienced childhood trauma that had shaped his psychological and emotional development, and that had led him into a gang culture of violence and illegal drugs. He again identified evidence of post traumatic stress disorder. Dr Cumming identified a change for the positive following the offence, with a realisation on the part of the applicant that he needed to escape the life of being in and associated with a gang. He found that the pre-existing condition of PTSD had been deepened by the offence and by further exposure to violence and the consequences of his actions. Dr Cumming considered that there was reasonable evidence that the applicant had matured and had the capability to turn his life around.
20. Dr Cumming addressed the question of dangerousness, and although he acknowledged that the applicant had a history of gang involvement, an association with violence and a willingness to carry weapons, he was of the opinion that the offence seemed unusual and he did not believe that the applicant attacked Mr Shamshi with the intention of ending his life. Dr Cumming stated that he tended to be of the view that the applicant did not fulfil the criteria for dangerousness, particularly taking into account the change he had managed to establish in leaving the gang culture, a greater maturity and his current mental state.
21. There was a Defence Sentencing Note prepared by Miss Goodwin KC which made express and detailed reference to the findings of Dr Cumming, and also identified the mitigating factors that existed. In particular (at paragraph 16 of the Defence Sentencing Note), reference was made to the family relocation from the Hounslow area (where the index offending occurred), and the applicant's active involvement in the gym, through boxing, which it was said had revolutionised him as a young person, with positive engagement and acceptance of his behaviour at trial, and with him accepting and taking responsibility for his actions. These points are also repeated and emphasised in a very recent skeleton argument prepared for the renewed oral application before us, drafted by Miss Goodwin in which it is urged that greater weight should have been applied by the sentencing judge to the applicant's personal circumstances.
22. In his sentencing remarks, the judge identified that the applicant stood to be sentenced for a wicked and cowardly attack on a defenceless and harmless man. The judge noted that the applicant had accepted in evidence that he struck a forceful kick to the head of Mr Shamshi with what was his shod foot, and which caused him to fall backwards and strike his head on the pavement, after which he appeared to strike him again to his head or upper body about 20 seconds later as he lay prone in the ground. The judge referred to the view of Dr Cumming that the applicant had made an assumption about his victim which was both unsupported and based on prejudice. For his part, the judge believed that the applicant had attacked his victim, perhaps based on groundless gossip, or alternatively for the sheer fun of it, shocking though that may sound.
23. The judge was in no doubt that the offending was Category B within the Manslaughter Guidelines. The applicant had kicked the head of his victim with a shod foot whilst the latter was sitting defenceless on the ground and posing no risk to him or to anyone else. Death was caused by an unlawful act which involved an intention to cause harm just falling short of grievous bodily harm, and the death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which carried a high risk of death or grievous bodily harm which was or ought to have been obvious to the offender, resulting in a starting point of 12 years' custody and a range of eight to 16 years' custody. There were statutory aggravating factors in the form of previous relevant convictions and the offence was committed whilst on bail. There was the additional aggravating factor that Mr Shamshi was vulnerable because he was intoxicated, alone and very obviously defenceless at the time.
24. Turning to the mitigating factors, the judge noted the lack of premeditation, the findings of Dr Cumming, the applicant's difficult background circumstances and his age which he addressed separately. Whilst the applicant had expressed remorse, the judge considered that a letter the applicant had written to him was more that of a convicted person feeling sorry for himself than genuine remorse, which was also to be viewed in the context of the fact that the applicant had contested the matter. The judge also noted that whilst the applicant said that he was influenced by others when it came to drugs, it was him, as the younger man, who had led the attack and inflicted the fatal injury.
25. The judge had express regard to paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the Sentencing Children and Young Person Guideline where a defendant crosses a significant age threshold during the currency of the proceedings, with the court taking as the starting point the likely sentence on the date the offence was committed, but that the purpose of sentencing adult offenders has to be taken into account, which is the punishment of offenders, the reduction of crime, the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, the protection of the public and the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences. It was noted that whilst the prosecution were asked to consider on the first day of the trial whether a plea to manslaughter would be acceptable, which it was not, the applicant could have pleaded to manslaughter, but chose not to do so, and causation remained a live issue for determination by the jury. Accordingly, no credit was appropriate in such circumstances.
26. The judge referred to video evidence of the applicant leading a previous attack on a shopkeeper, despite his young age of 14½, which involved a broken bottle and a metal pole. That showed that he was both a bully and prone to serious violence, as shown by that attack and the present offending, which was, in each case, relevant to dangerousness. The judge noted the contents of the pre-sentence report and the carefully worded conclusion that the applicant presented a high risk of serious harm to the public; and referred to the comprehensive and carefully considered findings of Dr Cumming in his reports. The judge concluded:

"Having taken into account your background, which has been examined by a probation officer and a psychiatrist, and bearing in mind all the matters advanced on your behalf, and looking at you during the course of the trial, I find that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by you by the commission of further specified offences."

The judge thereby found the applicant to be dangerous.

27. The judge considered that serious though the offending was, it did not justify a sentence of custody for life. He then rightly asked whether the public could be protected by a determinate sentence alone. He referred to all the matters which had been ably advanced by the applicant's counsel, Miss Goodwin KC (as also repeated before us), as well as the references before him, and he accepted that there were some signs that the applicant was making progress, against which were the facts of the offence itself and the applicant's history of violence. The judge concluded that he did not consider that the imposition of a determinate sentence would fully address the risk which he had no doubt the applicant still represented, and he concluded that an extended sentence was appropriate.
28. The judge indicated that had the applicant been an adult at the time of the offending and of the conviction, the determinate sentence, having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors (but not the reduction for age), would have been 12 years' custody, which would have been detention in a Young Offender Institution. The judge then passed an extended sentence of 14 years, made up of nine years' detention (less 152 days on qualifying curfew) and a five year extended licence.
29. The proposed grounds of appeal which were refused by the single judge were:

(1) That the judge wrongly placed the offence within category B, high culpability, with a starting point of 12 years' custody and a sentence range of between eight and 16 years' custody. The offence should have been placed within category C, with a starting point of six years and a sentence range of three to nine years' custody;

(2) That the imposition of an extended sentence was not well founded; and/or

(3) That insufficient regard was given to the mitigating factors including the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, his genuine remorse, his age and immaturity at the time of the offences, the positive steps taken to change his life, and the positive content in the addendum psychiatric report.

30. In her Skeleton Argument for Oral Application on Appeal, and in her oral submissions before us, Miss Goodwin has realistically accepted that the finding of dangerousness was appropriate, and in relation to the remaining grounds has majored on the third ground. In this regard she also put before the court evidence of positive conduct of the applicant whilst in prison, including the passing of English and maths exams.

Discussion

31. We are grateful to Miss Goodwin for her helpful written and oral submissions, but like the single judge before us, we do not consider that there is any arguable ground of appeal against sentence.
32. First, we do not consider that there is any merit in the submission that was made, that the Judge erred in categorising this offending as category B high culpability, rather than category C medium culpability. The judge had presided at the trial, and he was well placed, indeed best placed, to assess culpability. He was entitled to conclude, as he did, that this offending "fell fairly and squarely into category B", notwithstanding the applicant's age and lack of maturity (a category D factor) at the time of the offence, because death was caused by an assault which, firstly, involved an intention to cause harm falling just short of really serious harm; and secondly, carried a high risk of at least really serious harm which was or ought to have been obvious to the applicant, and the applicant's age and lack of maturity were set against the backdrop of previous and escalating violence, all of which were relevant when undertaking a fair assessment of the overall culpability of the offender.
33. Secondly, we do not consider that the judge erred in imposing an extended sentence. In this regard it was a matter for the judge firstly to determine whether the applicant was dangerous, and, as is now conceded, that was a proper finding to make; and secondly, if he was, as to whether the public could be protected by a determinate sentence alone. As to the former, and as is conceded, the judge identified the correct test, and had regard to the views expressed by the author of the pre-sentence report (who had also had the benefit of seeing the original psychiatric report), and who considered that the applicant posed a high risk of serious harm to the public, the risk being at its greatest when the applicant was in the community and associating with offending peers, which supported a finding of dangerousness.
34. Yet further, and notwithstanding an expressed desire on the part of the applicant to address his behaviour, it was noted that the clinical and actuarial risk assessment tools suggested that the applicant posed a medium risk of violent re-offending, and the author also considered there to be a medium risk of serious harm to and from other prisoners, which was again a matter to which the judge was entitled to have regard. As already noted, the author expressed the view that, bearing in mind the factors discussed throughout the report, the court might wish to impose an extended sentence if they were of the opinion that the applicant was a dangerous offender (as the judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant was, and as Miss Goodwin realistically accepted before us today).
35. In this regard, the judge was entitled to take into account the applicant's history of violent offending and the pattern of escalating violence, all set against a backdrop of the applicant being on bail at the time when he took Mr Shamshi's life, in relation to the supply of Class A drugs which arose from his involvement with criminal gangs. Yet further, and notwithstanding his involvement in this serious offence, the applicant had continued to offend and in February 2022 was prosecuted for possession of a bladed article.
36. The judge had careful regard to the psychiatric reports, and to the view expressed in the addendum report in which Dr Cumming did not consider that the test for dangerousness was met (albeit that dangerousness was ultimately a matter for the judge), and he also referred to all the matters advanced by the applicant's counsel, Miss Goodwin (as have also been drawn to our attention today), including an acceptance that there were some signs that the applicant was making progress. But it cannot possibly be said – and is no longer said - that having regard to the matters identified in the pre-sentence report, set against the backdrop of the facts of the offence and the applicant's history of violence, that the judge (who had had the benefit of hearing the applicant give evidence at trial over an extended period of time) erred in principle in concluding that the applicant was dangerous – and that is no longer suggested.
37. Equally, however, given the applicant's past history of violence, the circumstances of the offending, and the reasons for the recommendation of the author of the pre-sentence report that an extended sentence should be considered, it equally cannot possibly be said that the judge erred in principle, in concluding that the imposition of a determinate sentence would not fully address the risk which he considered the applicant still represented. In such circumstances the judge did not arguably err in principle in imposing an extended sentence.
38. We turn to the third proposed ground of appeal, in relation to which Miss Goodwin has majored before us today. The judge, we are satisfied, had careful and express regard to the mitigating factors, namely the appellant's PTSD, his expressed remorse (albeit that the judge, who had heard the applicant give evidence over many hours, did not accept that the applicant had shown true remorse, which was ultimately a matter for the judge), the applicant's age and lack of maturity, and the personal steps he had taken to change his life (which have been emphasised before us) and the positive matters expressed in the addendum psychiatric report. However, the weight to be attached to such factors was, as the single judge rightly noted, quintessentially a matter for the judge. He was not arguably wrong in the weight he gave to them, nor as to the sentence he arrived at (having made a significant, and appropriate, reduction from the sentence he would otherwise passed, including a 25 per cent reduction from 12 years to nine years in relation to age), not least having regard to the serious nature of the index offence, and the history of violence on the part of the applicant.
39. Equally, we have had careful regard to the latest matters from the prison, which are encouraging. However, there is nothing within that material which would lead to a conclusion that the sentence passed was arguably manifestly excessive.
40. Accordingly, the proposed grounds of appeal against sentence are not arguable, and as such the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.