R v Muaz Musa Ali

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved. [2026] EWCA Crim 593 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEEDS (HHJ SIMON BATISTE) [13LD0494724] CASE NO 202502119/A3 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday 24 April 2026 Before: LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE MR JUSTICE GARNHAM RECORDER OF LEICESTER (HIS HONOUR JUDGE TIMOTHY SPENCER KC) (Sitting as a Judge of the CACD) REX V MUAZ MUSA ALI __________ Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: [email protected] (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) _________ MR J LITTLEHALES appeared on behalf of the Applicant. _________ JUDGMENT MR JUSTICE GARNHAM:

1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that 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 that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.

2. On 19 May 2025 in the Crown Court at Leeds before HHJ Simon Batiste and a jury, the applicant (who was then aged 18) was convicted of attempted rape. On 13 June 2025, before the same judge, the applicant was made subject to an extended sentence of 9 years 3 months consisting of a 4 year 3 month custodial term and a 5-year extended licence. The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the Single Judge. The facts

3. On the evening of 10 May 2025, a female aged 15 (who we will refer to as "C") had been out drinking with friends in a park in central Leeds. She and two female friends had then walked towards the Corn Exchange. A group of older men began to harass them. As a result C began talking to the applicant, who was not part of the group but was sitting nearby on a bench. C was drunk at the time. The applicant tried to pull C so that she would sit on his knee. He tried to kiss her but she declined to do so and tried to pull away. The applicant persisted and managed to kiss her and bit her forcefully on the lip. He pulled her towards him and she fell onto him. He held her and kissed her.

4. The applicant then picked C up and carried her to a secluded area near the Corn Exchange, which was closed at the time. At one point he dropped her, causing her to bang her head on the floor, making her dizzy. He then placed her on her back on the ground and forcibly pulled down her trousers and underwear. He kissed her and tried to touch her vagina. She struggled to get away from him and shouted at him to stop. He then pulled his erect penis from his trousers and began masturbating. With his other hand he tried to find the entrance to C's vagina. As he did so C was kicking and screaming for him to stop. She said: "I don't want to do it".

5. These events occurred on a Friday night in central Leeds and there were lots of people in the vicinity. Some of them realised what was going on and intervened. At first the applicant tried to shoo them away. He tried to make C quiet by moving her face and kissing her mouth but she continued to shout and struggle. After several attempts one witness managed to get the applicant off C, at which point the applicant pretended to comfort the complainant. Two police officers nearby were alerted by another member of the public and the officers intervened and arrested the applicant. Sentencing

6. The applicant was born on 15 December 2026, and so was aged 17 at the time of the offending and 18 at sentence. He had three convictions for seven offences during the period of 2023 to 2024. In September 2023, he was sentenced to a referral order for criminal damage, possessing Class B drugs and arson. In December 2023 the referral order was extended for two offences of assault by beating of an emergency worker. In February 2024 the referral order was extended for offences of assault by beating of an emergency worker and common assault of an emergency worker.

7. The sentencing judge considered the Sentencing Guidelines and concluded that the case fell within culpability category B, noting that there were no high culpability factors, and harm category 2, noting that her age and drunken state made her vulnerable. He found that the location of the offence (in a public part of central Leeds), the presence of others nearby, the applicant's consumption of alcohol, his previous offences and the fact that he was subject to a referral order were all aggravating factors.

8. He took account of the applicant's mitigation including the fact that he was a relatively immature 17-year-old at the time of the offence and had a very difficult childhood and had developed PTSD. He indicated that had this offence been committed by an adult and had it been the full offence of rape, he would have adopted a starting point of 8½ years for the custodial portion of the sentence. But taking account of all the mitigating factors, including age, he reduced the sentence by 50 per cent to 4 years and 3 months.

9. In the light of the fact that this was a brazen attempt in a city centre to rape a young girl who the applicant must have known was highly vulnerable, the number and nature of his previous offences committed soon after arriving in the United Kingdom and the contents of the probation report, he concluded that the applicant presented a very high risk of serious harm by the commission of further sexual offences and accordingly imposed an extended licence of 5 years. The appeal

10. Mr Littlehales, who has appeared before us pro bono, argued on behalf of the applicant that the custodial element of the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the finding of dangerousness should not have led to so long an extended licence. He says that the judge indicated that he was reducing the sentence on account of the applicant's age alone by 50 per cent. It is argued that he ought then to have made a further reduction to reflect the other mitigation.

11. In writing, it is observed in respect of the extended sentence that the judge indicated that the previous offence of arson was a qualifying offence. It is argued that the judge erred in that regard because arson is not a qualifying offence for the purpose of Schedule 14 to the Sentencing Act. Discussion

12. We agree with the Single Judge that this was a very nasty attempted rape of a young girl. She was particularly vulnerable because of her age and intoxicated state. It was, as the judge put it, "a brazen assault" in a city centre which caused considerable distress and trauma to C and to passersby. In our view, the judge who conducted the trial was in the best position to judge the applicant's culpability. He was entitled to conclude that this was a 2B offence under the guidelines for rape. Such an offence has a starting point of 8 years for an adult. Aggravating features justified an increase in that sentence.

13. Consistent with the Youth Guidelines the judge then considered the appropriate reduction to reflect the applicant's age at the time of the offence. Paragraph 6.46 of the Guideline provides that: "When considering the relevant adult guideline, the court may feel it appropriate to apply a sentence broadly within the region of half to two thirds of the adult sentence for those aged 15 – 17 and allow a greater reduction for those aged under

15. This is only a rough guide and must not be applied mechanistically. In most cases when considering the appropriate reduction from the adult sentence the emotional and developmental age and maturity of the child or young person is of at least equal importance as their chronological age."

14. It is of note that it does not say that adult sentences ought to be reduced by 50 per cent for 17 year olds. The reduction should, in our judgment, reflect where in the bracket 15 to 17 the defendant fits. The guidelines most certainly do not say, as was suggested by counsel in writing, that it should be reduced by two-thirds. It provides that for a child or young person the adult figure may be reduced to two-thirds of the adult figure. Here, the judge deducted 50 per cent to take account ,not just of the applicant's age and immaturity, but also the other mitigating features he had identified. We see no ground for criticising the judge in that part of his analysis.

15. As to the judge's conclusions on dangerousness, we observe that section 267 of the Sentencing Act 2020 defines when an extended sentence of detention is available. For present purposes, it is available if either the "earlier offence condition" or "the 4 year term condition" is satisfied (see section 267(1). The earlier offence conditions is satisfied if, when the offence was committed, the offender had previously been convicted of an offence listed in Schedule

14. Arson is not referred to in Schedule

14. It follows that Mr Littlehales is right in his criticism of the judge in appearing to treat the 2023 arson offence as satisfying the earlier offence condition.

16. However, the 4-year term condition is satisfied when, if the court were to impose an extended sentence, the term that it would specify as the appropriate custodial term would be at least 4 years (see section 268). That was the position here.

17. Given the nature of this offending, the applicant's previous record, including an offence of simple arson and the contents of the pre-sentence report, in our judgment, the judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant was dangerous within the meaning of the Sentencing Act 2020. Since the sentence imposed was more than 4 years the judge was entitled to impose a 5-year extended licence period under section

268.

18. For those reasons this renewed application is refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]