Mohammed & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 8 November 2021 in the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant and the Applicant pleaded guilty to various counts on the indictment involving serious violent offences. The Appellant pleaded guilty to Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and multiple counts of Attempt to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). The Applicant pleaded guilty to similar offences including GBH with Intent. On 29 September 2023, His Honour Judge Blake sentenced the Appellant to a total of 10 years and 9 months' imprisonment and the Applicant to a total of 14 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Several counts of Burglary and Affray were ordered to lie on file against both defendants. A co-accused was sentenced separately and his appeal was refused.

The offences involved a campaign of violent and callous assaults perpetrated by the defendants, who acted as rogue landlords inflicting serious violence on tenants and vulnerable homeless individuals. The assaults were often video recorded and included multiple victims over an extended period from February 2019 to May 2020. The defendants were involved in a family property business with a substantial portfolio. Pre-sentence reports described the defendants as posing a high risk of serious harm, with limited remorse and a desire to exert power and control through violence.

The Appellant and Applicant appealed against their sentences, challenging aspects such as the assessment of culpability, allowance for personal mitigation including age and maturity, and the totality of their sentences. The Applicant also sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the Appellant and Applicant were manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the totality of their offending behaviour.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing culpability factors and starting points for various offences.
3. Whether appropriate allowance was made for the Appellant's age and lack of maturity at the time of offending.
4. Whether the Applicant's personal mitigation, including remorse, character, and caring responsibilities, was sufficiently considered in sentencing.
5. Whether the Appellant's sentence for Count 8 correctly reflected the reduction for guilty plea and adjustment for age and maturity.
6. Whether an extension of time should be granted for the Applicant to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The total sentence of 10 years and 9 months is manifestly excessive due to errors in finding culpability factors and insufficient allowance for personal mitigation, particularly age and maturity.
• The sentence on Count 8 did not properly reflect the reduction for guilty plea and adjustment for age/lack of maturity.
• The total sentence was disproportionate to the overall offending behaviour.

Applicant's Arguments

• The total sentence of 14 years and 6 months is manifestly excessive due to errors in culpability assessment and starting points.
• No allowance was made for personal mitigation in the sentence for Count 9.
• Insufficient allowance was made for remorse, character, caring responsibilities, and age in sentencing.
• An extension of time was sought due to delays in obtaining instructions and papers with new legal representatives.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognized the serious and prolonged nature of the violent offending by the Appellant and Applicant, which involved multiple victims and a campaign of terrorizing conduct over more than a year. The sentencing judge's approach of imposing some consecutive and some concurrent sentences was deemed appropriate given the multiple serious offences against different victims.

In addressing the appeals, the Court emphasized the necessity for the total sentence to be just and proportionate to the overall offending. It rejected attempts to compartmentalize each offence and place undue reliance on personal mitigation and remorse, which were limited or belated.

Regarding the Applicant, the Court found that a sentence of 14 years and 6 months after a 25% reduction for guilty plea was not manifestly excessive given the extreme brutality and leadership role in the offences, including an assault resulting in amputation. The Court noted that the sentencing judge had carefully considered all relevant factors, including personal mitigation and impact on family, but that the need for punishment and deterrence outweighed these.

For the Appellant, the Court found substantial overlap with the Applicant's grounds and rejected most renewed grounds of appeal, including those concerning culpability and totality. However, the Court identified an error in the sentence imposed on Count 8, where the judge's stated starting point and credit for plea were inconsistent, resulting in a higher sentence than intended. The Court corrected this by substituting a sentence that properly reflected the judge's intention and appropriate mitigation for age and maturity.

The Court also clarified the impact of sentencing length on custodial release provisions, noting that reducing the sentence on Count 8 affected the proportion of time the Appellant would serve in custody.

Overall, the Court refused the Applicant's renewed application for leave to appeal and extension of time, finding no arguable grounds. It allowed the Appellant's appeal only to the limited extent of correcting the sentence on Count 8 and reducing the total sentence accordingly.

Holding and Implications

The Court's final decisions are as follows:

• The Applicant's renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and extension of time are refused. The Court found the sentences to be just, proportionate, and not manifestly excessive in light of the serious and brutal nature of the offences.
• The Appellant's appeal against sentence is allowed only in relation to Count 8. The sentence on Count 8 is quashed and substituted with a reduced term of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment, resulting in a total sentence reduction to 10 years and 3 months. The Appellant will serve half of this sentence in custody.

No broader precedent was set by this decision. The direct effect is the adjustment of the Appellant's sentence on one count and confirmation of the overall proportionality of the sentences imposed on both defendants.