[2025] EWCA Crim 1115

We have had the benefit of highly competent submissions from Ms Arden and Mr Evans to whom we are grateful and whose submissions we have considered with care. Though expressed in slightly different ways, the grounds for each appellant and the submissions that we have heard today are essentially the same. For Mr Sami it is submitted that the prosecution's assessment in its sentencing note was correct and that this should be taken as falling within category 1B of the substantive Theft guideline. It is even argued, as it was below, that the offence was not sophisticated at all within the meaning of the guideline. It is said that Mr Sami had only one acquisitive offence on his record. If the case was properly characterised as Mr Sami suggests, it is then submitted that the sentence should have been one of 2 years or less and should have been suspended. It is said to have been wrong in principle not to have considered a suspended sentence in view of the judge's categorisation of the offence.

On behalf of Mr Salem, it is again submitted that it was wrong to place the offence within culpability category A and that the adjusted starting point of 5 years was too high. Accordingly, the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. In support of the submission that the offence was not sophisticated, it is submitted on Mr Salem's behalf that "the defendants in this case went about the thefts in such a way that their detection and ultimate arrest was a foregone conclusion ... Most experienced criminals take sophisticated precautionary measures to avoid detection that are absent in this case." It is also said that the judge should have mentioned that the offence was "poorly thought out and carried out without any attempt to disguise their actions". The uplift from 3 years 6 months to 5 years is described as being "for additional harm" and on that basis is said to be excessive.