[2025] EWCA Crim 1115

We have no doubt that this case was properly treated by the judge as involving high culpability. Even if the appellants failed to take better precautions against detection, the means they adopted had sophisticated elements and each theft involved significant planning. It is obvious that the thefts of each car were carried out to order, involving sourcing the car, finding it, hiring a car or cars to take the appellants from their homes to where the cars were to be found, the use of electronic devices to override the vehicles' locking and driving systems, and delivering the cars for onward disposal. None of this would have happened without significant planning. The fact that they were caught does not detract from the level of planning and sophistication involved in the thefts. It can reasonably be said that the sophistication of the operation and the conspiracy of which they were guilty is demonstrated by the fact that three of the four cars were not recovered. It is simply wrong to submit that the appellants took no steps to disguise their actions. They carried out their thefts at night so as to minimise the risk of detection.

In saying all of this we bear in mind the submission particularly made on behalf of Mr Salem that we should have regard to the specific role taken by each appellant in the course of their involvement in the conspiracy. We have done so.

We therefore endorse the adoption of the starting point of 3 years and 6 months as the relevant starting point under the Theft guideline. It should, however, be recognised when referring to that guideline that the appellants were guilty not of a single theft but of a conspiracy to steal, carried out over a period of a month.

There were substantial aggravating features here, as the judge correctly identified. The uplift to five years is amply justified by:

In the case of each appellant, the judge adjusted the notional sentence of 5 years before mitigation down to 51 months - a reduction of 9 months for each appellant's personal mitigation. His treatment of the submission that the appellants had suffered from mental health difficulties which we have cited was sound.

The only mitigating feature that the judge did not mention was Mr Sami's caring responsibilities. In the light of that information, some judges may have made a slightly greater reduction than the 9 months allowed by the judge. However, standing back and looking at the sentences overall, we are far from persuaded that in the case of either appellant the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. These appeals are therefore dismissed.