R v Adeel Sami & Anor

For sentencing a conspiracy to steal, culpability is assessed by the planning and means used, not merely by the offenders’ precautions against detection. An operation may contain sophisticated elements even where the offenders use their own phones, hire cars in their own names, and are ultimately caught. A conspiracy carried out over a month may be materially different from a single theft when selecting the guideline starting point. A substantial uplift may be justified by very high aggregate value, relevant antecedents and victim impact. Mental health difficulties may provide personal mitigation even where they did not significantly reduce culpability. Caring responsibilities may justify some additional reduction, but do not necessarily make the sentence manifestly excessive.

Following convictions at St Albans Crown Court for conspiracy to steal, Adeel Sami and Adam Salem were each sentenced by His Honour Judge Michael Roques to 51 months’ imprisonment on 12 December 2024. The conspiracy concerned four high-value vehicles stolen from driveways over approximately one month, with a total value exceeding £220,000.

Both defendants appealed against sentence. They argued principally that the offending belonged in category 1B, or was not sophisticated, and that the starting point and resulting sentences were excessive. Sami also relied on his caring responsibilities. The central issues were the proper culpability categorisation, the appropriate starting point and uplifts, and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. Appeals dismissed. The sentences of 51 months’ imprisonment were not manifestly excessive.
2. The offending was properly treated as high culpability. Each theft involved significant planning, including sourcing the vehicles, locating them, hiring transport, using electronic devices to override locking and driving systems, and arranging onward disposal. The absence of better precautions against detection did not deprive the operation of its sophisticated elements. The fact that the appellants were caught was not inconsistent with sophistication; the thefts were committed at night and three of the four vehicles were not recovered.
3. The court endorsed a starting point of three years and six months under the Theft guideline. In applying that guideline, the sentencing court had to recognise that the defendants were sentenced for a conspiracy carried out over a month, rather than for a single theft.
4. The uplift to five years was amply justified by the aggregate value exceeding £100,000, the defendants’ antecedents and the circumstances in which the offending was committed, and the effect on the victims shown by the victim impact statements. The court also considered the appellants’ individual roles in the conspiracy.
5. The judge’s treatment of mental health difficulties was sound. Such difficulties could be taken into account as mitigation even though they had not significantly affected culpability. The judge had reduced the notional five-year sentence to 51 months for personal mitigation.
6. Sami’s caring responsibilities were the only mitigating feature not mentioned. Some judges might have made a slightly greater reduction, but, standing back and assessing the sentences overall, the Court of Appeal was far from persuaded that either sentence was manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2025] EWCA Crim 1115: appeals against sentence dismissed; the sentences of 51 months’ imprisonment were upheld.
• St Albans Crown Court — the appellants were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to steal on 7 February 2024 and sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment on 12 December 2024.