Aljabali, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted after summary trial in the Magistrates' Court and committed for sentence to the Crown Court at The City on two separate committal references. The first set of offences (committal ending 2824) arose from an incident on 13 May 2024: the Plaintiff was on his houseboat when he discovered the Appellant aboard, ejected him after a struggle and sustained injury to his hand. The Appellant left a bag containing two rocks; police arrested him and found a kitchen knife with an 18 cm blade and a lock-knife. The Appellant made no comment in interview.

The second set of offences (committal ending 5124) occurred on 11 September 2024: CCTV showed the Appellant entering a park carrying a large stick, striking a man and engaging in further violence after leaving and returning to the scene. The Appellant was arrested. The Appellant was sentenced on 15 January 2026 at the Crown Court at The City by Judge Picton to a total of 3 years and 3 months' imprisonment: 2 years and 6 months for the burglary (with no separate penalty for possession of the knife) and 9 months consecutive for the affray (with no separate penalty for possession of the offensive weapon). Ancillary orders were made. The Appellant brings this appeal against sentence with leave granted by a Single Judge.

At the time of sentence the Appellant was 27 years old (25 at the time of the first offences). He had previously received 10 weeks' imprisonment on 15 December 2025 for other offences. The pre-sentence report recorded that the Appellant had moved to the State some years earlier, was of no fixed abode, presented with poor mental health and that custody was the appropriate route given his circumstances and previous non-compliance.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence of 3 years and 3 months was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the judge erred in the culpability and harm categorisation for the burglary (challenge to placement in high culpability/category A and harm category 1).
3. Whether the judge erred in the culpability and harm categorisation for the affray (challenge to placement in culpability category A and harm category 2).
4. Whether the judge failed to give proper effect to mitigation, totality and existing custodial time when passing consecutive sentences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• On burglary: the judge mis-categorised culpability as high despite the Appellant's status as of no fixed abode, carrying belongings, limited intrusion and impulsive conduct; the offence should have been medium culpability and placed in harm category 2B with a starting point of 18 months.
• Mitigation (youthful age at offence, lack of convictions, remorse, difficult background and refugee status) warranted further downward adjustment.
• On affray: the judge failed to balance use of a weapon (culpability A) against initial claim of self-defence (factor C); the case more properly fell into culpability B and harm category 3, attracting a non-custodial or shorter sentence.
• Totality: insufficient account was taken of totality and of the 10-week custodial sentence imposed after the index offences; cumulative effect should have reduced the overall term.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the Sentencing Guideline approach of weighing factors from different culpability and harm categories and concluded the sentencing judge had followed that approach. On burglary the court accepted the judge's finding of high culpability (category A) because the Appellant was carrying a knife at the time; the guideline does not require possession for the purpose of the burglary and the risk posed by a person in possession of a knife justified the finding. The judge's acceptance that the offence was impulsive did not outweigh the serious culpability factor.

Regarding harm for the burglary, the court endorsed placement in category 1 because the Plaintiff was present in his home, experienced significant fear and suffered substantial physical injury necessitating surgery and causing lasting impairment. The court considered the fact nothing was stolen and property disturbance was limited to be of lesser relevance to harm under those circumstances.

The court approved the starting point of 3 years for the burglary, the avoidance of a separate knife sentence to prevent double counting, and the downward adjustment to 2 years and 6 months for mitigation.

On affray the court accepted that although the Appellant initially acted in self-defence, he left and returned armed with a stick and persisted despite efforts to dissuade him, so culpability A was justified. The court agreed harm was properly placed in category 2 because the violence occurred in a busy public area at a time when families and children were likely to be present, an aggravating factor warranting upward adjustment. The court found no error in imposing the 9-month sentence consecutive to the burglary sentence and was satisfied the judge had considered totality and mitigation, including the subsequent 10-week sentence.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Consequences: The Crown Court sentence of a total of 3 years and 3 months' imprisonment (2 years and 6 months for the burglary and 9 months consecutive for the affray) is upheld. The court did not identify any error in the categorisation, application of mitigation, or in its approach to totality. No new legal precedent was established and no broader implications beyond the direct effect on the parties were stated in the opinion.