R v Ali Mohammed Hamid

On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave is exceptional. A sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. Totality requires distinct periods of similar offending, particularly offending committed on bail after arrest and before sentence, to be reflected by an uplift or consecutive sentence. An earlier sentence cannot simply be deducted from the sentence for later offences. A guilty-plea reduction must follow mitigation in the applicable guideline sequence. An offence attracting no separate penalty must still be reflected in the overall sentence. The sentence was increased from 30 months to five years.

The offender pleaded guilty to offences involving Class A drugs and criminal damage. The offences included a distinct resumption of a drugs line while he was on bail awaiting sentence for earlier, similar offending. The Crown Court at Wood Green imposed concurrent sentences totalling 30 months’ imprisonment and ordered no separate penalty for the criminal damage.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to reflect the 2022/23 offending, had ordered inappropriate concurrency, had applied the guilty-plea reduction in the wrong sequence, and had allowed excessive mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient.

The court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and held that the total sentence was unduly lenient.

1. Threshold for intervention. Applying the principles summarised in Attorney General’s Reference (R v Egan) [2022] EWCA Crim 1751, the first-instance judge is particularly well placed to assess competing sentencing factors. A sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range reasonably open to that judge. Leave is granted only in exceptional circumstances and not in borderline cases.
2. Earlier and later offending. The Totality Guideline provides a useful guide. The court should first determine the appropriate sentence for the instant offences, then decide whether and how to allow for an earlier sentence, considering all the circumstances. It is not simply a matter of deducting the earlier sentence. Relevant considerations included the similarity of the offending, its temporal relationship with the earlier offending, the reason for delay, the offender’s conduct in the interim, and the effect of concurrent or consecutive sentences.
3. Application. The 2022/23 offending was a distinct, non-overlapping resumption of the same drugs-line operation after arrest and while on bail. It should have been reflected by a substantial uplift or a consecutive sentence. The delay caused no real detriment because the offender had repeatedly returned to custody for licence breaches and had committed further offences. The criminal damage also had to be reflected in the overall sentence, although no separate penalty was appropriate.
4. Calculation. The guilty-plea reduction should have followed mitigation. The sequencing error produced an over-reduction, although that error alone would not have made the sentence unduly lenient. The mitigation reduction was generous but not excessive.
5. Orders. The concurrent 30-month sentences for possession with intent were quashed and replaced by concurrent sentences of five years. The 18-month sentence for being concerned in supply was quashed and replaced by a concurrent sentence of two years. All other sentences and orders remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 29 April 2026, the court granted the reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, quashed the relevant sentences and substituted a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment: [2026] EWCA Crim 651.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 12 December 2025, Mr Recorder Searle imposed concurrent sentences totalling 30 months’ imprisonment and ordered no separate penalty for criminal damage.