Majid v The Queen

The case of Majid v The Queen involved the appellant who was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent and one count of detain for advantage. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed by the trial judge prior to the decision in Muldrock v The Queen, which altered the approach to sentencing for aggravated sexual offences. The appellant’s earlier appeal was largely unsuccessful, but a part 7 application was made, leading to the matter being referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central legal issues were whether the sentences were affected by the Muldrock error and if they were manifestly excessive.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the Crown conceded there was a Muldrock error in the original sentencing, necessitating a re-sentencing. The court examined whether a lesser sentence was warranted, considering the objective seriousness of the offences and the appellant's progress towards rehabilitation. The appellant had untreated mental health issues, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder stemming from childhood experiences, which were relevant to the assessment of the appropriate sentence. The court also considered the impact of the accumulation and concurrency of the sentences, and whether an expired sentence could be relevant for the purposes of accumulating and concurrent sentencing of the other offences. Special circumstances, including the appellant's mental health, were taken into account. The court concluded that the appeal was allowed in part, leading to a re-sentencing by the Supreme Court.