R v Salim Nazek

In sentencing for non-domestic burglary, the absence of a victim at the scene does not require classification at the lower end where business-critical equipment was taken and moderate damage was caused. A sentencing court may make a substantial uplift from the single-offence starting point to reflect multiple offences, recent identical convictions and offending committed while on licence shortly after release. Full credit for early guilty pleas must still be given. A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because it exceeds the guideline starting point substantially, where it remains just and proportionate to the offending as a whole.

After pleading guilty to one burglary and one attempted burglary of non-domestic premises, the appellant was committed for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The Crown Court at Southwark imposed concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed with leave, arguing that the offences involved only low-value loss, that the absence of victims required a lower sentence, and that the uplift from the single-offence starting point was excessive. The central issues were the appropriate harm category and whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The offences were properly treated within Category 2B of the applicable burglary guideline. Although no victim was present, card readers, cash tills and alcohol had been taken. The card readers and tills were vital to the operation of the business, and moderate damage had been caused by smashing windows to gain entry.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to impose a substantial uplift from the six-month starting point for a single Category 2B burglary. The uplift reflected that there were two offences, together with significant aggravating factors: recent convictions for identical offending, the appellant’s release from that sentence only shortly before these offences, and his commission of the offences while on licence.
3. There was no mitigation. The judge nevertheless gave full credit for the appellant’s early guilty pleas. The resulting notional sentence after trial and concurrent sentence were just and proportionate for the offending as a whole and were not manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 21 November 2025, the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 1613.
2. Crown Court at Southwark — On 13 October 2025, imposed concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment for burglary and attempted burglary.
3. Westminster Magistrates’ Court — On 5 September 2025, accepted the appellant’s guilty pleas and committed him for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.