BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Rahman & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 616 (08 April 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/616.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 616

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

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 616
CASE NO 202304209/A2-202304215/A2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEWES
(MR RECORDER BROMPTON KC) [47EH0057522]

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

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH
MR JUSTICE BRYAN
HIS HONOUR JUDGE MANSELL KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)

____________________

REX

- v -

SHAHNUR RAHMAN
RIDWANDUR RAHMAN

____________________

NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION
____________________

HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    MR JUSTICE BRYAN:

  1. On 2 October 2023, in the Crown Court at Lewes, before Mr Recorder Michael Brompton KC and a jury, the applicants Shahnur Rajman ("Shahnur") and Ridwanur Rahman ("Ridwanur") (then aged 30 and 29 respectively) were each convicted of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent.
  2. On 8 November 2023 the applicants (then aged 31 and 29 respectively), were sentenced together with their brother Monimur Rahman ("Monimur") and their father Siddiqur Rahman ("Siddiqur") by Mr Recorder Michael Brompton KC in respect of the incident in which they were all involved, and in relation to which they had all stood trial.
  3. Shahnur was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment in respect of the attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent (Count 2).
  4. Ridwanur was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment in respect of the attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent (Count 2).
  5. Their brother Monimur was sentenced to 4 years and 5 months' imprisonment in respect of the attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent (Count 2). Monimur was also found guilty of possessing an offensive weapon (a metal bar - Count 4).
  6. Their father, Siddiqur, was convicted of affray (Count 3) and sentenced to a Suspended Sentence Order of 18 months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months.
  7. Monimur renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence, following a refusal by the Single Judge, to the Full Court. On 28 January 2025 the Full Court refused such renewed application (judgment reported at [2025] EWCA Crim 94).
  8. Shahnur, as a litigant in person, applies for an extension of time of 91 days in which to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the Single Judge.
  9. Ridwandur, as a litigant in person, applies for an extension of time of 87 days in which to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the Single Judge.
  10. The explanation given by Shahnur and Ridwanur for the late renewal is that in each case they did not receive the renewal forms from their respective prisons.
  11. Turning to the facts of the applicants' offending. The complainant, Yahya Ali, was an 18-year-old Sudanese asylum seeker who, for a short time, had been employed at the takeaway and delivery restaurant in Hastings owned by the Rahman family and managed by Shahnur.
  12. On the evening of 5 January 2022 there was a fracas at the premises, principally involving Mr Ali and Ridwanur, which was triggered by an argument over money that Mr Ali claimed to be due to him. In the course of that altercation Ridwanur's finger was bitten by Mr Ali, and Mr Ali was then ejected from the premises.
  13. Thereafter Mr Ali was pursued down the street by Monimur who had by then arrived at the premises and had armed himself with a metal bar. Ridwanur followed but soon ran out of breath and returned to the premises. Meanwhile Monimur continued the chase.
  14. Mr Ali sought refuge behind a street food trailer, but Monimur found him and proceeded to attack him with the metal bar. Mr Ali eventually escaped, but Monimur continued to pursue him. Eventually Mr Ali found himself cornered on a road beside the railway station. He was set upon by Monimur and Shahnur, who had arrived on the scene by car, and they proceeded to punch and kick Mr Ali and stamp on him. Monimur also struck Mr Ali with the metal bar. A car then arrived, driven by the father Siddiqur, and in company with Ridwanur. They both joined in the attack on Mr Ali, who was lying on the ground. Railway staff shouted at them to stop, saying that the Police had been called, but it was a little time before they desisted. They then departed by car, leaving Mr Ali lying on the road, barely conscious.
  15. As a result of the incident Mr Ali sustained multiple facial and scalp bruises, swelling to his face, and pain in multiple areas. He also sustained a fractured left ulnar bone and wore a plaster cast for a month.
  16. In his sentencing remarks the Recorder found that there had been a fracas at the restaurant which was triggered by an argument over money that the victim, Mr Ali, had claimed to be due to him, during the course of which Mr Ali had bitten Ridwanur's finger, after which Mr Ali was ejected from, and thereafter pursued from, the restaurant. The Recorder found that this attack that followed was to be characterised as a revenge attack, carried out by four defendants acting in concert in which Mr Ali was hunted down through the streets of Hastings, and then beaten mercilessly.
  17. The Recorder identified that it was Category A offending under the Sentencing Council Guideline the relevant factors being a prolonged persistent assault and revenge and Category 3 harm (though the Recorder noted that this was, perhaps, somewhat generous to the defendants given that there was evidence of psychological injuries suffered by Mr Ali) with a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment and a range of 4 to 7 years' imprisonment.
  18. In the case of Shahnur the Recorder identified that he had two previous convictions, each for using threatening behaviour in 2018 and 2020, and a caution for common assault in 2014, but it was plain from numerous character references that he was highly regarded in the community and had carried out many good works in support of others. The previous convictions were aggravating factors but only to a modest extent and there was an element of abuse of power in relation to Mr Ali, which were balanced out by the previous exemplary conduct to produce a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, before a one-fifth (20%) reduction to take account of the fact that it was an attempt (albeit that Mr Ali did suffer a serious injury), a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment.
  19. In the case of Ridwanur, the Recorder identified that he too had excellent character references, which spoke of him being reliable, hard working, polite and not a violent man. The offending was again Category A3. The aggravating factors were the abuse of power, and there was an element of racial hostility towards Mr Ali, with the mitigating factor being the positive previous good character which allowed a reduction from the starting point of 5 years to 4 years 8 months' imprisonment which, after the same one-fifth reduction as an attempt, resulted in a sentence of 3 years 9 months' imprisonment.
  20. The grounds of appeal against sentence of each of Shahnur and Ridwanur, which were refused by the Single Judge, were drafted by counsel, but are renewed before us by Shahnur and Ridwanur themselves. The first three grounds in each case were that the Recorder erred (1) in categorising the offending as culpability A rather than culpability B under the Guidelines, (2) in suggesting there was any abuse of power and (3) in categorising it as a revenge attack. The fourth ground in the case of Shahnur was that there was insufficient reflection of the high regard in which he was held in the community and insufficient reduction for an attempt. The fourth ground in the case of Ridwanur was that there was no racial motivation, the assault being a direct result of the injury caused to this applicant, and the fifth ground was that insufficient regard was given to Ridwanur's available mitigation.
  21. We note that there is considerable overlap between these grounds and the grounds that were found not to be arguable by the Full Court in the case of Mominur.
  22. We have given careful regard to the grounds of appeal against sentence sought to be advanced on behalf of each of Shahnur and Ridwanur. We have also read statements from each of the applicants dated 22 January 2025, though we note that much of what is there stated is directed more towards conviction, on which the jury gave their verdict rather than sentence. However, like the Single Judge before us, we do not consider that any of the grounds of appeal against sentence are arguable.
  23. The Recorder rightly characterised the offending as Culpability A (not least given that it was a prolonged and persistent attack), and it was indisputably Category 3 Harm with a 5-year starting point. Having presided over their trial, the Recorder was well-placed to judge the circumstances of the offending, and he did not arguably err in identifying an abuse of power and characterising it as a revenge attack. On any view it was an attack arising out of the fracas at the restaurant where Mr Ali was employed by the family. Nor did the Recorder arguably err in identifying a racist element in the case of Ridwanur given that he called Mr Ali a "black bastard". The Recorder had careful regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in each case (including in relation to character) and did not arguably err in that regard. The adjustment for an attempt of one-fifth was entirely appropriate, and the respective sentence passed in the case of Shahnur and in the case of Ridwanur was, in each case, not arguably manifestly excessive.
  24. In such circumstances the grounds of appeal are, in each case, not arguable, and the applications for an extension of time, and for leave to appeal against sentence are refused.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010