Mohamed, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses an application for leave to refer sentences considered unduly lenient by His Majesty's Solicitor General. The respondent pleaded guilty to two offences of robbery and one offence of unlawful wounding in the Crown Court at Cardiff. He was of previous good character and received full credit for his guilty pleas.

The offences involved two separate robberies of an elderly victim at a casino and later at her home, with the second robbery involving unlawful wounding causing serious injury and a permanent facial scar. The respondent was sentenced to an overall term of four years eight months' imprisonment, comprising concurrent sentences for each offence. The Solicitor General submitted that the sentence was too low, arguing that the second robbery should have been categorised as a more serious offence with greater aggravating factors taken into account. The respondent contended the sentence was appropriate, considering full credit for pleas and personal mitigation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence imposed on the respondent was unduly lenient.
2. Whether the second robbery offence should have been categorised as a Category 1 rather than Category 2 offence under the sentencing guidelines.
3. The appropriate application of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, including the effect of previous good character, remorse, and the respondent's role as a carer.
4. The correct approach to totality and proportionality principles in aggregating sentences for multiple offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The overall sentence was too low and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences.
• The second robbery should have been categorised as a Category 1 offence, warranting a higher starting point for sentencing.
• There should have been a greater uplift for aggravating factors, including the targeting of a vulnerable victim, planning, and the location of the offending.

Respondent's Arguments

• The sentence was appropriate and not unduly lenient.
• Full credit was given for guilty pleas.
• There was substantial personal mitigation, including previous good character, genuine remorse, and the respondent’s role as a primary carer for dependent relatives.
• The sentence had been correctly calculated in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the categorisation of the offences under the offence-specific sentencing guideline, focusing particularly on the harm categories. It acknowledged that the second robbery fell on the cusp between Category 1 and Category 2 harm, with the victim sustaining serious physical injury including a permanent facial scar and psychological harm.

The judge’s approach to culpability (Category B) was found to be proper, with no evidence that a higher culpability category applied. The court recognised the aggravating factors such as planning, targeting a vulnerable elderly victim repeatedly, and the location and timing of the offences. It also recognised mitigating factors including the respondent’s good character, remorse, and his role as a carer.

The court noted the starting points for sentencing under the guideline and found that the judge’s decision to treat the second robbery as the lead offence with an uplift to reflect the other offences was permissible. The overall sentence reflected a balance of aggravation and mitigation, and principles of totality and proportionality were properly applied to avoid double counting.

Ultimately, the court concluded that while the sentence might be considered lenient or merciful by some, it was not unduly lenient within the meaning of the law, and refused leave to refer the sentence for being unduly lenient.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE to refer the sentence on the basis that it was not unduly lenient.

The direct effect is that the respondent’s sentence remains as imposed by the Crown Court. The decision does not establish new precedent but confirms that the sentencing judge’s approach to categorisation, aggravating and mitigating factors, and totality principles was within the permissible range of judicial discretion.