R v Said Mohammed & Anor

When sentencing multiple serious offences, the court may use consecutive sentences, concurrent sentences, or a lead-offence approach with uplift. The controlling requirement is a total sentence that is just and proportionate to the offending as a whole. An appeal court should assess totality without compartmentalising counts or giving unrealistic weight to personal mitigation. A sentencing error in an individual count can justify correction even if the aggregate sentence is not manifestly excessive. Under section 244 ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, release calculation depends on individual sentences and the statutory threshold must be applied count by count. Here, an unexplained increase in the trial starting point and omitted mitigation required Count 8 to be reduced, changing the custody fraction.

Said and Shamrez pleaded guilty in November 2021 to serious violent offences committed against multiple victims over approximately 15 months. On 29 September 2023, HHJ Alan Blake sentenced Said to a total of 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment and Shamrez to 14 years and 6 months. Said appealed with limited leave in relation to Count 8 and totality, while renewing other grounds. Shamrez renewed his application for leave and sought an extension of 116 days. The central issues were the proper approach to totality, the weight of personal mitigation, and whether the sentencing judge had made an inconsistent starting-point calculation and failed to apply mitigation on Count 8.

The court refused Shamrez’s renewed application for leave to appeal and his application for an extension of time. Said’s appeal was allowed on the limited ground concerning Count 8.

1. Totality. Where multiple serious offences are committed on separate occasions against several victims, it is appropriate to impose consecutive sentences for some offences and concurrent sentences for others. It is also permissible to sentence on a lead offence and treat the remaining offences as aggravating factors. Whichever structure is chosen, the total sentence must be just and proportionate to the offending as a whole. Appellate review should not compartmentalise individual counts or give undue weight to personal mitigation.
2. Shamrez. A sentence of 14 years and 6 months after 25 per cent credit for guilty pleas was not arguably manifestly excessive for the prolonged, highly culpable violence. Count 9 involved Category A1 offending, with vulnerability, persistence, leadership and revenge as high culpability factors. The other serious offences required a substantial further uplift. Remorse, family circumstances and other personal mitigation carried limited weight. The court applied the guidance in R v Petherick [2013] 1 WLR 1102 that the prospect of disproportionate interference with family life diminishes as the offence becomes graver.
3. Said. The judge had properly considered Said’s age and lack of maturity, so the renewed general grounds were not arguable. However, the judge had identified five years as the appropriate trial sentence for Count 8 before mitigation, applied 25 per cent credit, but then used a 66-month trial sentence to arrive at 48 months. This unexplained six-month increase, together with the failure to apply the intended mitigation, was an error.
4. Correction and custody calculation. The appropriate sentence for Count 8 was four years and eight months before credit, reduced to three years and six months after credit. Section 244 ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies to individual sentences, and the four-year threshold must be assessed count by count. Because Count 8 fell below that threshold, Said would serve one half of the total sentence in custody. The sentence on Count 8 was quashed and replaced with three years and six months, reducing the total to 10 years and 3 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 8 April 2025, Shamrez’s renewed application for leave to appeal and application for an extension of time were refused. Said’s appeal was allowed on Count 8, his sentence was reduced to 3 years and 6 months, and his total sentence was reduced to 10 years and 3 months. [2025] EWCA Crim 613
• Crown Court at Luton: On 29 September 2023, HHJ Alan Blake sentenced Said to 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment and Shamrez to 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.