R v Ali Aljabali

Sentencing guidelines do not require an offence to fall into an intermediate category merely because factors appear in different categories. The court must weigh all relevant factors and select the category that most resembles the offender’s case. Carrying a knife during a burglary may justify high culpability even without proof that it was carried for the burglary or intended for use. Where an occupier is present and suffers substantial injury, the burglary may fall within the highest harm category. Limited property disturbance and the absence of theft may then carry less weight. Returning armed after an initial act of self-defence and persisting in a public place may justify high culpability and category 2 harm for affray.

After summary convictions before Bristol Magistrates’ Court, the appellant was committed to the Crown Court for sentence for burglary, possession of a knife in a public place, affray and possession of an offensive weapon. The Crown Court at Bristol imposed a total sentence of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, comprising consecutive terms of 2 years and 6 months for burglary and 9 months for affray, with no separate penalties for the possession offences.

The appellant appealed with leave, arguing that the offences had been placed in excessively high culpability and harm categories, and that insufficient allowance had been made for mitigation and totality. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed. The total sentence of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

1. Guideline categorisation. Where factors fall within different culpability or harm categories, the court must weigh them and select the category which most resembles the offender’s case. The existence of one factor in one category and another factor in a different category does not automatically require placement in an intermediate category. The sentencing judge had adopted that approach.
2. Burglary. The judge was entitled to place the burglary in category A culpability. The appellant was carrying a knife when the burglary was committed. The guideline did not require proof that he had carried it for the purpose of committing the burglary. The relevant concern was the risk that a person carrying a knife might use it if disturbed. The lesser factor that the burglary was committed on impulse did not outweigh that risk.
3. The burglary properly fell within category 1 harm. The occupier was present in his home, felt significantly less safe afterwards and suffered substantial injury while ejecting the appellant. The fact that nothing was stolen and that there was limited disturbance to property had substantially less relevance to harm in those circumstances. The 3-year starting point was therefore justified, and the reduction to 2 years and 6 months appropriately reflected mitigation. No separate penalty for possession of the knife avoided double counting.
4. Affray. The judge was entitled to place the offence in category A culpability. Although the appellant initially acted in self-defence, he later returned armed with a stick, persisted despite efforts to dissuade him and used the weapon to inflict violence. There was no self-defence at that later stage. The category 2 harm assessment was also open to the judge. The intended harm lay between categories 1 and 3, and the busy public setting, where families and children were likely to be present, justified an upward adjustment. No separate penalty was imposed for possession of the offensive weapon.
5. The consecutive sentence for affray properly reflected totality. The judge had expressly taken totality and mitigation into account, and no discount was required for the 10-week sentence imposed after the index offences had been committed.

• Crown Court at Bristol: on 15 January 2026 imposed a total sentence of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2026] EWCA Crim 839; appeal dismissed.