Elezi, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 30 August 2023, in the Crown Court at Reading, the Appellant pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to one count of possession of cocaine. Following a trial before Judge Thompson and a jury on 18 September 2023, the Appellant was unanimously convicted of one count of conspiracy to kidnap and one count of conspiracy falsely to imprison. On 22 September 2023, the Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years' imprisonment on the conspiracy counts, with no separate penalty imposed on the possession count.

There were three co-accused: Company A was convicted of the conspiracy to kidnap and conspiracy to falsely imprison counts and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment; two others were each convicted of conspiracy to falsely imprison and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

The Appellant applied for an eight-day extension of time to renew an application for leave to appeal against sentence, which was granted based on sufficient explanation provided by Attorney Wibberley.

In February 2023, due to a drugs debt, the victim was forcibly taken from a bar in The City and held hostage for approximately 40 hours at the Appellant’s residence. The victim was lured under the pretext of a drug deal, assaulted with a baseball bat and knife, and transported between vehicles before being detained at the flat. During detention, the victim was made to make telephone calls to raise a ransom initially set at £40,000, later increased to £110,000. The victim's friends raised some money and secured a transfer of a vehicle to satisfy the ransom demands.

The victim was threatened with further detention and torture but was eventually rescued when armed police stormed the flat on 18 February 2023, arresting the Appellant and others. The Appellant denied involvement in the kidnap during police interview, but mobile phone evidence contradicted this denial.

The victim sustained multiple injuries, including bruising, stab wounds to the neck and stomach, a deep wound to a finger causing restricted movement, and grazes to the head.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of ten years' imprisonment for conspiracy to kidnap and falsely imprison was manifestly excessive.
2. The appropriateness of the starting point for sentencing in the absence of definitive guidelines at the time of sentencing.
3. The application of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the sentence.
4. Whether the extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive, with the starting point being too high.
• No gratuitous violence was used or threatened; any violence was accidental.
• The sentence should have been closer to eight years rather than ten.
• The case was placed incorrectly at the higher end of offending of this type by the trial judge.
• Reference to the forthcoming definitive guideline on kidnap and false imprisonment (effective April 2025) was made to support the contention that the sentence was excessive, despite the guideline not applying to this case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Needham [2022] EWCA Crim 545; [2002] 2 Cr App R(S)	Factors to consider in sentencing for kidnapping, including length and circumstances of detention, violence used, planning, psychological effect, and associated criminal behaviour.	The trial judge applied these factors to assess the seriousness of the offence, concluding the case was towards the higher end of the spectrum but not at the top level of seriousness.
Attorney General's Reference No 102-103 of 2014 [2014] EWCA Crim; [2015] 1 Cr App R(S) 55	Sentencing guidance indicating that hostage-taking and ransom demands attract sentences close to a 16-year starting point; other kidnapping cases attract double-figure sentences regardless of violence.	The trial judge relied on Lady Justice Macur's comments from this case to justify the sentence level, emphasizing deprivation of liberty over violence as determinative of seriousness.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the facts and sentencing exercise undertaken by the trial judge, who applied the Needham factors in the absence of definitive sentencing guidelines at the time. The judge’s assessment of the case as towards the higher end of seriousness was supported by factors including the prolonged detention of approximately 40 hours, the planned nature of the kidnap, the involvement of multiple offenders, ransom demands, and the context of other criminal activity (drug dealing).

The court noted that although the violence was not gratuitous and some injuries were accidental, the presence of weapons, the victim’s permanent injury, and the psychological impact were significant aggravating factors. The court also agreed that the deprivation of liberty was the gravamen of the offence and that violence was not the sole determinant of seriousness.

The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the sentence was excessive, emphasizing the difficulty and limited utility of direct comparisons with other cases due to differing fact patterns. It agreed with the single judge’s refusal of leave to appeal, noting that the sentence was within the general range appropriate for the offence and circumstances.

The court acknowledged the forthcoming definitive guideline on kidnap and false imprisonment, noting that the case would fall at least within category A2, which supports a starting point of seven years and a range of five to ten years. The sentence of ten years was consistent with this framework and reflected the aggravating factors present.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL against the sentence imposed.

The direct effect of this decision is that the sentence of ten years' imprisonment on the conspiracy to kidnap and conspiracy to falsely imprison counts stands. No separate penalty was imposed on the possession count. The court did not establish new precedent but affirmed the trial judge’s careful and well-reasoned approach to sentencing in a complex case involving serious criminal conduct and multiple aggravating factors.