R v Mohammed Akhtar Hussain & Anor

On an appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal will respect the trial judge’s evaluative judgment on the appropriate robbery guideline. It should intervene only where the categorisation is obviously wrong or based on an error of principle, and will vary a sentence only if it is manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in principle.

Professional and sophisticated commercial robbery is not confined to cases involving elaborate security or disguise. Considerable planning may be established cumulatively by inside information, timing, co-ordination, preparation of equipment and exploitation of access arrangements. The court upheld the use of that guideline and dismissed both appeals.

Both appellants appealed against sentences imposed by HHJ Cohen at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook on 23 May 2025. Hussain received eight years and three months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to rob, with no separate penalty for possession of a class A drug, contrary to section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Rahman received 10 years and nine months for conspiracy to rob, together with a concurrent five-year sentence for possession of an imitation firearm at the time of committing a Schedule 1 offence.

The appellants argued that the judge had used the wrong robbery guideline, adopted an excessive starting point and imposed manifestly excessive sentences. Rahman also challenged the credit given for his guilty plea. The central issue was whether the offending fell within the guideline for professionally planned commercial robbery rather than the guideline for street or less sophisticated commercial robbery.

1. Disposition. Both appeals against sentence were dismissed. Neither sentence was manifestly excessive, nor was there an error of principle or judgment.
2. The sentencing judge had been in a materially better position than the Court of Appeal to assess the offending because the trial on a related count had begun and he had heard evidence, including evidence from the victim. Choosing the appropriate guideline and placing the offending within it involved an evaluative judgment. The Court of Appeal would interfere only if that judgment was obviously wrong or wrong in principle.
3. The judge was entitled to use the guideline for professionally planned and sophisticated commercial robbery. The relevant features operated cumulatively. They included the inside information, the timing of the robbery, knowledge of the cash-counting process, access arrangements, co-ordination between the appellants, the use of cable ties and an imitation firearm, and the provision of a tabard to enable Rahman to masquerade as a store employee. The acquittal of the getaway driver, the use of ordinary mobile phones and the basic nature of the disguise did not alter that conclusion.
4. The court also observed that placing the offending in a lower category would have required a substantial upward adjustment to reflect aggravating features not captured by that category. The length of the sentences reflected the professionally organised robbery, the substantial planning and the serious personal impact on the employee who was restrained and threatened with what he believed was a firearm. The reduction applied to Rahman’s sentence for his guilty plea did not give rise to an error of principle.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 323, both appeals against sentence were dismissed.
2. Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 23 May 2025, HHJ Cohen sentenced Hussain to eight years and three months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to rob. Rahman received 10 years and nine months for conspiracy to rob, with a concurrent five-year sentence for possession of an imitation firearm.