Man jailed for child sex offences renews bid to appeal sentence after initial refusal 

A man jailed for seven years for sexual offences against children will seek leave to appeal his sentence before the Court of Appeal next month after his first application was refused. 

Chief Justice Anthony Dudley refused leave to appeal earlier this month, but the rules allow the application to be renewed before the full Court of Appeal, which the man has done. 

The case will be heard before three appeal judges in the Court of Appeal late September, with the substantive appeal to be determined in that same session if leave is granted. 

Zakaria Laaraj, 36, was convicted by a jury last year of 13 sexual offences against two children, one of whom was under the age of 13 at the time. 

The court heard he had taken advantage of the complainants and sexually touched them and kissed them on numerous occasions between 2015 and 2020. 

Laaraj was convicted of 10 offences in respect of one victim and three offences in respect of the other. 

He was sentenced for one lead offence in respect of each of the girls, as well as additional jail terms for the other charges. 

While the sentences in respect of each victim were to run concurrently, the jail terms for the two lead offences were to run consecutively. 

In practice, that meant Laaraj faced seven years in jail. 

In seeking leave to appeal that sentence, lawyers for Laaraj directed the challenge to the fact that the sentences for the lead offences were to run concurrently. 

They argued the trial judge had not taken sufficient account of the totality principle, which requires an overall assessment of the offending to ensure a sentence is fair and proportionate. 

But in a judgement published earlier this month, Mr Justice Dudley said this was “not reasonably arguable”. 

“There is nothing to suggest that the judge failed to have proper regard to the totality principle,” the Chief Justice said.  

“On the contrary, the sentencing exercise demonstrates that he approached the matter with that principle in mind.” 

“The decision to direct that the sentences imposed in respect of each complainant should run concurrently reflects a clear recognition that the sentence for each victim should properly reflect the totality of the offending against that complainant.”  

“Equally, the decision to make the sentences relating to the two complainants consecutive, recognises that they constituted distinct courses of criminal conduct committed against separate victims.” 

Laaraj was also refused permission to appeal a 10-year Sexual Offences Prevention Order [SOPO] imposed by the court and which his lawyers described as excessive. 

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal the SOPO, Mr Justice Dudley said nothing had been identified to suggest the order was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. 

In the judgement, Mr Justice Dudley acknowledged that Laaraj could have the application determined by the full Court of Appeal if he was aggrieved by his decision to refuse permission.