R v Samy Daim

When sentencing multiple related fraud offences, a judge may adopt a global approach which reflects the total criminality and results in concurrent sentences. The fact that sentencing guidelines are framed for a single offence does not prevent that approach.

For fraud involving financial loss exceeding £200,000, harm may be assessed initially in category 2. Serious detrimental effects on more than one victim may justify moving the harm assessment to category 1; the guidelines do not require every victim to have suffered that level of impact. An appellate court will not interfere where the resulting sentence is well within the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge.

The applicant pleaded guilty to 11 fraud offences involving a total of £213,180. The offending involved falsely marketing properties, arranging viewings and inducing prospective tenants to pay rent in advance.

On 17 June 2025, HHJ Silas Reid at the Inner London Crown Court imposed a sentence of four years and four months. The judge assessed the offending globally, applied culpability category 1A and harm category 1, and allowed for mitigation and the applicant’s guilty pleas.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal, arguing that the culpability and harm assessments were excessive and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the global categorisation and resulting sentence were reasonably open to the sentencing judge.

The court refused leave to appeal. The sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive and was well within the range available to the sentencing judge.

1. Global approach. The judge was entitled to assess the offences globally as one piece of offending and to impose concurrent sentences reflecting the total criminality. The sentencing guidelines are directed to a single offence, but that did not prevent a global assessment. Consecutive sentences for the principal periods of offending could have produced a longer sentence, even after applying totality.
2. Culpability. It was reasonably open to the judge to place the offending in culpability category A. The fraud was conducted over a sustained period, involved a large number of victims and was sophisticated. The applicant used his estate-agency experience, advertised properties on websites, arranged viewings, offered substantial discounts for advance payment and used documentation and a company to create an appearance of legitimacy.
3. Harm. The financial loss caused or intended exceeded £200,000, placing the harm in category 2 before victim impact was considered. There was evidence that at least two victims suffered seriously detrimental effects. The guidelines did not require all victims to have suffered serious detrimental impact before the harm could be moved up to category 1.
4. Sentence. A seven-year starting point was justified. The judge allowed six months for mitigation and then applied the full one-third reduction for the guilty pleas, producing a sentence of 52 months. That sentence was within the proper sentencing range.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 10 December 2025, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal.
• Inner London Crown Court: On 17 June 2025, HHJ Silas Reid sentenced the applicant to four years and four months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to 11 fraud offences.