A controlling husband claimed to have been told by his lawyers he ‘wouldn’t need’ someone to represent him at his sentencing hearing.

Abdul Shamim, 34, was found guilty at the magistrates’ court in October of controlling and coercive behaviour and assault. The case was sent to the crown court for sentence, as the district judge felt their powers of punishment were not harsh enough.

He was asked by Recorder John Bate-Williams why there was no advocate to represent him at the sentencing hearing on Thursday.

“The people that did the legal work for me, I asked them whether anybody would need to come and they said [they] wouldn’t,” he said through an interpreter.

The judge replied: “I think there must have been a misunderstanding. The magistrates’ court sent you to this court for sentence because this court has greater powers than the magistrates’ court.

“The offences for which you were found guilty are serious and the conviction for coercive and controlling behaviour is particularly serious. There is a very real risk and indeed a high probability that a prison sentence will be passed.

“It would be very much in your interests to have a legal representative – a solicitor or a barrister – acting on your behalf in this court.

“[The probation service’s pre-sentence report] provides a lot of useful material for the court but it does accept the court will have a prison sentence at the front of its mind.”

Shamim, of Marjoram Close, Oxford, was bailed to return to Oxford Crown Court for sentence on December 20.

Mark Seymour appeared for the Crown Prosecution Service.

Keep up to date with all the latest news on our website, or follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

For news updates straight to your inbox, sign up to our newsletter here.

Have you got a story for us? Contact our newsdesk on news@nqo.com or 01865 425 445.