R v Arjol Selamaj & Anor

In sentencing for affray, use of a weapon may contribute to culpability and, where the weapon is especially dangerous, constitute a separate aggravating feature. That is not necessarily double counting. The aggravating features must nevertheless be balanced against mitigation, including previous good character and employment. Where mitigation has not been adequately reflected, an appellate court may reduce the sentence. Immediate custody may remain necessary for serious street violence involving weapons, even after a sentence is reduced.

These were joint appeals against sentence by a father and son who had pleaded guilty to affray and other offences. The Crown Court at Warwick sentenced Adrian to 20 months for affray, with a concurrent sentence for possessing a bladed article. Arjol received 20 months for affray and a consecutive two months for cultivating cannabis.

The appellants argued that the affray sentences were excessive because of double counting and insufficient mitigation. They also renewed their applications for leave to challenge the refusal to suspend the sentences. The central issues were the proper treatment of weapon-related aggravation, the weight of mitigation, and whether immediate custody was justified.

The appeals were allowed in part.

1. The initial self-defence or defence of another was taken into account, and the incident was not long or sustained. It was nevertheless serious. Weapons had been used and the appellants intended to cause fear of really serious violence, establishing category A culpability under the applicable affray guideline.
2. Adrian’s meat cleaver was an obviously dangerous weapon. Its use properly justified an uplift to the category 1A starting point. Although weapon use was already relevant to category 1 culpability, the especially dangerous nature of the cleaver could separately aggravate the offence. Treating it as an aggravating feature was not full double counting.
3. The sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to Adrian’s mitigation. The especially dangerous weapon, the victim’s injuries, and the daytime public setting were balanced by his previous good character, absence of any convictions at the age of 61, and full employment. The appropriate sentence after trial was therefore the 24-month starting point. After the one-third guilty plea discount, the affray sentence was 16 months.
4. Arjol had used a less dangerous weapon, but his attack was more persistent and violent. The court upheld the conclusion that he should receive the same 16-month affray sentence. His two-month cannabis sentence was appropriate and properly consecutive.
5. Although the reduction of sentence permitted reconsideration of suspension, leave was refused on that ground. For serious street violence involving weapons, appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody.

The affray sentences were quashed and replaced by sentences of 16 months. Adrian’s total sentence was 16 months and Arjol’s was 18 months. All other sentences and orders remained unchanged.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2026] EWCA Crim 66, the affray sentences were reduced to 16 months each. Adrian’s total sentence became 16 months and Arjol’s 18 months. Leave was refused on the suspension ground.
2. Crown Court at Warwick — On 13 October 2025, Adrian was sentenced to 20 months for affray, with a concurrent bladed-article sentence. Arjol was sentenced to 20 months for affray and a consecutive two months for cannabis cultivation.
3. Leamington Spa Magistrates’ Court — On 12 September 2025, the appellants pleaded guilty and were committed for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.