Ayman Aziz [2019] EWCA Crim 1568

The appellant was convicted of the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl. He was 16 at the time of the offending.  He was sentenced to detention at HM pleasure with a minimum term of 19 years. 

The victim had been friends with the appellant, and after losing touch for a while had recently made contact. The post mortem revealed she had suffered a sustained and ferocious attack to the head. A minimum of 21 blows had been inflicted, some consistent with the use of a weapon. Semen was found consistent with anal intercourse.

The appellant accepted meeting the victim, and that consensual intercourse took place but that he had left her alive.

The pre-sentence report reported a troubled background and expert reports described symptoms of psychosis and paranoia with the criteria met for a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

On appeal it was argued the judge paid insufficient regard to the statutory starting point for those under 18. The approach to the appellant’s mental health was criticised and also that too much attention was paid the appellant’s chronological age and not his developmental immaturity.

Held: the overall increase, after balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, was from 12 to 19 years. That was not wrong and sat comfortably with the approach on Markham. The murder was carried out with a weapon; there was sexual motivation, rape, and a sadistic element to the offending. It was legitimate to keep in mind that the sadistic and sexual elements of the offending would have led to a starting point for someone over 21 of a whole life term. The Court was unpersuaded that the minimum term was manifestly excessive. The severity of the sentence flowed from the weight attached to the “truly dreadful” nature of the offending.

In the Crown Court, the judge had made an “excepting direction” to discharge the s45(3) direction on the identification of the appellant. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, and an interim anonymity order made. The issue was considered in the appeal. The judge had set out the relevant statutory provisions and referred to authority on the importance of open justice, identifying the competing considerations. The offences committed were exceptionally serious and shocking in their planning, the length of time over which they were perpetrated and their brutality. Although he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia the judge did not consider there was sufficient evidence to conclude this significantly reduced culpability, which could have been a factor in favour of maintaining anonymity.

It was submitted the judge failed to have due regard to the expert reports and author of the PSR, and the prospect the appellant may relapse into psychosis. Also, that he erred in regarding the lack of any causative link as a weighty factor in deciding whether to lift the reporting restriction and failed to have sufficient regard to the applicant’s welfare.

The Court held that the criticisms were ill-founded. The judge was well aware of the welfare of the applicant and had adjourned for reports. His ruling contained an evaluation of the psychiatric evidence, its impact on culpability and the risks of harm to the applicant. His approach to the evidence cannot be faulted.

The Court also heard argument on jurisdiction. In the circumstances, not having granted leave to appeal, the Court reconstituted as a Divisional Court and dealt with the issue in judicial review. The stay on the proceedings was lifted and the appellate hearing treated as the substantive judicial review.

The claim was dismissed, and the anonymity order discharged.