Ibrahim, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 6 September 2024 the Appellant, then aged 19, was convicted at the Crown Court of murder (Count 1) for an offence committed on 4 September 2023 and sentenced to custody for life with a minimum term of 15 years. He was acquitted on an associated count of possession of an article with a blade or point (Count 2). The Appellant, who was aged 18 years and 9 months at the time of the offence, surrendered to police three days after the killing and maintained a self-defence account. The sentencing judge applied the statutory starting point of 15 years under Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Code, uplifted and reduced that figure for non‑statutory aggravating and statutory mitigating factors to arrive at a minimum term which, after deduction for time on remand (365 days), was recorded as 15 years. With leave of the single judge the Appellant appealed on the grounds that the minimum term was manifestly excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the minimum term imposed was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in identifying or weighing aggravating and mitigating factors (including attendance intent on a violent confrontation, disposal of the knife, failure to surrender, and failure to deliver the mobile phone).
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to treat an element of self‑defence (statutory mitigating factor) as applying.
4. Whether the judge applied the correct statutory starting point and made any arithmetical or procedural error in calculating the minimum term.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Wells)

• The judge wrongly identified and/or mis-weighted aggravating and mitigating factors, producing a manifestly excessive minimum term.
• The judge should not have treated attendance at the scene intent on a violent confrontation as an aggravating factor for murder where no knife had been brought by the Appellant and there was no premeditation of murder.
• The throwing away of the knife was a spontaneous act in the presence of onlookers, not a deliberate attempt to conceal evidence; the absence of phone and clothing did not fairly aggravate the offence.
• The judge should have recognised an element of self‑defence (albeit unlawful) because the jury acquitted the Appellant of bringing the knife to the scene and the victim had relevant previous convictions; remorse had been expressed from the outset.
• The combined weight of mitigating factors, including youth and immaturity, outweighed the aggravating factors and justified a reduced minimum term.

Respondent's Submissions (Attorney Hearn)

• The sentencing judge was best placed to identify and weigh the relevant features and there is no basis to disturb her exercise of discretion.
• The aggravating factors identified (attendance intent on violence, use of a knife, daylight/public setting, disposal of the knife, failure to produce the phone) were serious and merited uplift from the 15‑year starting point.
• The judge properly took account of mitigating factors (age, lack of premeditation, no intent to kill) and was entitled to reject a self‑defence finding on the evidence.
• The modest uplift applied by the judge was reasonable in all the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasised the trial judge's advantage from having heard the evidence and being best placed to make factual findings and weight factors. The Court accepted that the judge was entitled to treat as aggravating: the use of a knife and commission in daylight in a public residential street; and the disposal of the knife, finding that disposal was more than a momentary discard and amounted to a deliberate attempt to get rid of it. The Court accepted the judge was entitled to regard attendance at the scene intent on a violent confrontation as an aggravating factor but assessed that it was of distinctly limited weight where the Appellant had not brought a knife and there was no premeditation of murder. The Court rejected the view that failure to surrender within three days was an aggravating feature, but accepted that failure to deliver the mobile phone was aggravating because it prevented handset analysis; absence of clothing was of no consequence in this case.

On mitigation, the Court gave substantial weight to lack of premeditation and lack of intent to kill, and accepted that the Appellant's youth and immaturity were properly taken into account (noting guidance against treating age 18 as a cliff‑edge). The pre‑sentence report was of limited weight because it proceeded on an erroneous factual premise that the Appellant had brought a knife to the scene, and the judge had made clear she had ignored those erroneous observations.

Balancing the factors, the Court concluded that the aggravating factors did not outweigh the mitigating factors; rather, the mitigating factors at least matched the aggravating factors. The Court therefore found the minimum term, before deduction for time on remand, should not have exceeded 15 years and that with deduction of 365 days the appropriate minimum term was 14 years.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The appeal is allowed in part. The Court reduced the Appellant's minimum term to a minimum term of 14 years (after deducting 365 days for time on remand).

Implications: The direct effect is to reduce the Appellant's minimum term from the previously calculated term to 14 years. The decision adjusts the balancing of aggravating and mitigating features in this case but does not purport to establish a new legal principle or binding precedent beyond its application to the facts before the Court.