R v Mohammed Ibrahim

On a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal will not interfere merely because it might have balanced culpability, aggravating features and mitigation differently. In domestic burglary, the harm category may reflect the burglary as a whole, including violence, threats, psychological injury, loss and damage, while culpability remains focused on the individual offender. A peripheral participant’s lack of knowledge of the full violence does not necessarily reduce the harm category. Participation in a large group and offending at night may aggravate sentence. A guilty plea made only after contesting an earlier trial may attract limited credit. Where the custodial term is not manifestly excessive, a challenge to suspension does not arise.

The appellant, aged 20 at the time of the offending, drove a group to a night-time dwelling burglary. Following a trial at the Crown Court at Birmingham on 21 May 2024, he was convicted of theft contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. The jury could not agree on an aggravated burglary count. Before a retrial, he pleaded guilty to burglary contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968.

On 14 November 2025, the Crown Court at Warwick sentenced him to 27 months’ imprisonment for burglary and 12 months’ imprisonment for theft, to run concurrently. He appealed against the custodial sentence, challenging the harm and culpability assessment, the credit for his guilty plea and the refusal to suspend the sentence. The central question was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court found no proper basis to interfere with the 27-month custodial term.

1. Guideline categorisation. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the burglary in category 1B, with a two-year custodial starting point. He was also entitled to assess the harm caused by the burglary as a whole, including the presence of the victims, violence and serious threats, psychological injury, substantial loss and property damage. The appellant’s lack of knowledge that this violence would occur did not require a lower harm category. The judge was entitled to find that no lower-culpability factors were present.
2. Aggravating and mitigating features. The appellant’s individual blameworthiness remained the focus, but participation in a large group and the fact that the burglary was committed at night were additional aggravating features. His age, peripheral role, remorse and subsequent progress were mitigating features. Their balance was a matter for the sentencing judge, who had presided over the trial. A pre-credit sentence of 30 months was not manifestly excessive.
3. Guilty plea. The 10 per cent reduction was within the judge’s discretion. The appellant had contested the first trial on a basis he later accepted was false and did not formally offer a guilty plea until nearly a year and a half later, when the retrial was about to begin.
4. Suspension. As the custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive, the question of suspension did not arise. The judge had nevertheless considered whether the sentence could be reduced to a level capable of suspension and concluded that 27 months was the lowest sentence he could properly impose.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2026] EWCA Crim 1018 : the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the 27-month custodial sentence upheld.
2. Crown Court at Warwick: on 14 November 2025, Judge Rochford sentenced the appellant to 27 months’ imprisonment for burglary and 12 months’ imprisonment for theft, concurrent.
3. Crown Court at Birmingham: following the trial on 21 May 2024, the appellant was convicted of theft. The jury could not agree on the aggravated burglary count, for which a retrial was ordered. He later pleaded guilty to burglary as an alternative.