R v Mohammed Saleh & Anor

On sentence appeals, failure to cite the Overarching Guideline on Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences, or to recite its factors, does not itself invalidate a refusal to suspend custody. The question is whether the sentencing remarks show that the judge addressed whether appropriate punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody. A pre-sentence report is not automatically required where no additional relevant information is indicated. An omission to address suspension may be treated as a slip if corrected and the reasons are clear. Delay, rehabilitation and personal mitigation remain relevant, but do not require suspension where the seriousness of the offending and the offender’s role justify immediate imprisonment. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a sentence within the permissible range unless it is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Mohammed Saleh and Basharat Hussain pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to possess counterfeit goods for sale. The Crown Court at Birmingham sentenced Saleh to 12 months’ imprisonment and Hussain to 18 months’ imprisonment. Both appealed against the refusal to suspend their custodial sentences.

Saleh argued that the judge should have obtained a pre-sentence report and expressly applied the imposition guideline. Hussain relied on delay, rehabilitation and personal mitigation. Neither appellant challenged the length of the sentence or the crossing of the custody threshold. The central issue was whether immediate custody was justified and whether the sentencing judge’s reasoning provided grounds for appellate intervention.

Both appeals dismissed. The sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. Pre-sentence report. In Saleh’s case, the judge was entitled to conclude that a pre-sentence report was unnecessary by the time of sentence. There was no indication that it would have disclosed relevant information not already before the judge. The Court of Appeal likewise did not require a report to determine the appeal.
2. Omission concerning suspension. The judge initially omitted to address suspension in his sentencing remarks, but corrected the omission when it was raised. The omission was properly treated as a slip. The reasons given in Hussain’s case, which were adopted for Saleh, made clear that the seriousness of the offending prevented suspension.
3. Imposition guideline. Although the judge did not refer expressly to the imposition guideline, his remarks demonstrated that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody. The Court rejected the submission that citation of the guideline or recital of its factors would have altered the result. Saleh’s role in supporting a sophisticated and sustained conspiracy, including activity for his own benefit, justified immediate imprisonment.
4. Hussain’s appeal. The judge had expressly considered the delay and the age of Hussain’s guilty plea. He was entitled to conclude that neither those matters nor Hussain’s conduct during the intervening period displaced the need for immediate custody, given Hussain’s role in the conspiracy and the seriousness of the offending.
5. The Court found no basis to interfere with the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion. It dismissed both appeals.

• Crown Court at Birmingham: HHJ Drew KC sentenced Saleh to 12 months’ imprisonment and Hussain to 18 months’ imprisonment on 11 April 2025.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Both appeals against sentence were dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 1025.