R v Abdul Noor

Where an offender is already subject to a determinate sentence for unrelated offending, a further sentence may properly be consecutive. The court must nevertheless assess the totality of the criminality and ensure that the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate. A further reduction may be required even where the later sentence is not excessive when considered alone. The reduction may be minimal where the offender’s overall criminality is substantial.

Factual comparisons with unrelated sentencing decisions should not replace sentencing principle, particularly where the comparator concerns materially different offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Burnley to conspiracy to commit dwelling-house burglaries. The conspiracy involved 13 burglaries. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, consecutive to a 42-month sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Manchester for two earlier dwelling-house burglaries, for which he had been convicted after trial.

He challenged the sentence on the grounds that the starting point was excessive, mitigation was insufficiently credited, and insufficient regard was given to totality. The central issue was whether the aggregate sentence of 10 years and six months was just and proportionate to his overall criminality.

1. Appeal allowed on totality. The seven-year sentence was not manifestly excessive when considered alone. The Court would also have reached the same conclusion about the earlier 42-month sentence had it been appealed. The issue was therefore whether the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate.
2. Starting point and mitigation. A sentence of at least 10 years after trial was justified by the conspiracy’s scale, involving 13 dwelling-house burglaries, significant aggravating features, and the appellant’s relevant previous convictions and antecedent history. The mitigation was scant. The 30 per cent plea discount was generous because the evidence was compelling and there was no proper basis for describing the case as very complex.
3. Use of comparisons. The proposed comparison with R v Gregory and Butler [2017] EWCA Crim 1297 did not assist. That case concerned commercial burglaries, whereas the present offending concerned a conspiracy involving multiple dwelling-house burglaries. Factual comparisons with cases that do not establish sentencing principle or arise from an Attorney-General’s reference are of limited assistance.
4. Totality. The existing 42-month sentence arose from unrelated offending. A consecutive sentence was therefore reasonably imposed, but the sentencing court had to consider the totality of the offender’s criminality and ensure that the overall term was just and proportionate. The failure to address the earlier sentence required a further reduction. Because the appellant’s overall criminality was great, that reduction was minimal.
5. Order. The July 2024 sentence was quashed. A sentence of six years’ imprisonment consecutive to the 42-month sentence was substituted, producing a total sentence of nine and a half years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ([2025] EWCA Crim 208): allowed the appeal on the issue of totality, quashed the seven-year sentence and substituted six years consecutive to the existing 42-month sentence.
• Crown Court at Burnley: sentenced the appellant in July 2024 to seven years’ imprisonment consecutive to the sentence imposed at Manchester.
• Crown Court at Manchester: sentenced the appellant in May 2024 to 42 months’ imprisonment for two earlier dwelling-house burglaries following conviction after trial.