No: 2002/3962/W3 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Crim 2209
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2 

Wednesday, 2 October 2002
B E F O R E:

MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY 

and
 
THE RECORDER OF LIVERPOOL
(His Honour Judge David Clarke QC) 
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
- - - - - - -
 
R E G I N A 

-v- 

AMINUR RAHMAN
 
 - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -

MR M SCOTT appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT

 - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY: On 20the December 2001 in the Crown Court sitting at Merthyr Tydfil this 24-year-old appellant pleaded guilty to indecent assault and on 8th February 2002 was sentenced to a term of 18 months' imprisonment. By leave of the single judge, who granted bail and expedited this hearing, he appeals against the length of that sentence.
2.	On 21st October 2001 in Llandrindod Wells, between 3 pm and 4 pm in the afternoon, a sixteen-year-old girl was walking in a public park when the appellant approached her. She recognised him -- he had approached her a few days before asking directions. On this occasion he grabbed her shoulder, kissed her cheek and although she carried on walking, repeatedly telling him to go away, he followed her and persisted in kissing her, pushing her against the wall of a bridge underneath which she was walking and aiming his kisses to her cheeks and her mouth. She protested. She told him to leave her alone. He then tried to put his hand down the top of her t-shirt and, according to her, touched her vaginal area over her clothing. She struggled, she pushed him away and ran off, very distressed and frightened. 
3.	In interview the appellant conceded that he had approached her but wanted, he said, to know the way out of the park and she swore at him which made him angry. Although he accepted that he had placed his hand above her breast, he did not accept that if he touched her vaginal area over her clothes it was in any way deliberate. 
4.	Born on 10th May 1978 he was of previous good character. The judge had the advantage of a pre-sentence report dated 20th December 2001 which recited the appellant's expressed remorse but made plain that his understanding of his victim was limited. His friends were generally within his own Bangladeshi culture and because he was immersed in it the demands that he speak or write English were few. He needed, thought the author, to understand his motivation so as to break the vicious circle into which he had descended and unless that happened there was a potential for the level of risk he presented to increase. He must learn the necessary controls as to his sexual behaviour. Normally group work would have been suggested to address that difficulty but it was a sad commentary for the judge to read that there was non such available for a Bengali speaker. 
5.	Sentencing him the judge acknowledged the seriousness of the facts, the fear and distress caused to the victim and rightly said that custody was inevitable, that he took account of good character, plea, age and the contents of the pre-sentence report. He acknowledged that the appellant did not, once successfully pushed away, persist further. But people who behaved in this fashion would be punished with immediate custody.
6.	In grounds of appeal complaint is made that insufficient regard was given to those matters the judge rehearsed, that the victim looked older than her years and the difference in their height - the appellant was five inches shorter than she - and his belief in her age was genuine. He had been in regular employment. It was not his fault that there was no provision, such as we have rehearsed, for the Bengali speaker. 
7.	Giving leave the single judge characterised this as an unpleasant assault on a 16-year-old but there had been an early plea. The appellant was of good character and he thought 18 months excessive. 
8.	We have been helpfully referred by Mr Scott to the authority of Amin [1998] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 63 where a sentence of six months was deemed appropriate for two instances featuring two victims, but not dissimilar facts. The court is indebted to Mr Scott for the clarity with which he has advanced his submissions. It has always been our view that 18 months was excessive and whereas at first we wondered whether a substitution of nine months might not be appropriate, we have been persuaded both by a review of the authority and by the force of Mr Scott's submissions that the appropriate reduction in this case is to a term of six months. To that extent this appeal succeeds.