[2025] EWCA Crim 1115

"You were all part of the planning in advance; you were all part of the operation on the day. I do not accept that anybody just acted as a driver taking others to and from the scene. These were all planned in advance, and you were all involved in that planning."

That was a conclusion that as the trial judge he was perfectly placed and entitled to reach.

"I have to make an assessment about where these offences fall within the sentencing guidelines. As I said in the case of your co-defendant Mr Michael, I’m firmly of the view that this is a culpability A offence. This was a sophisticated offence with significant planning. The prosecution note for sentence indicates that they would invite me to find it was a top end category B offence. I don’t. I find it was a category A offence, but I do note that a top end category B offence would have a starting point of three years six months which is the same

Starting point for category 1A. It is undoubtedly, everybody agrees, a category 1 case. In fact, category 1 is based on a starting point of £100,000 and in this case there would have to be an uplift to reflect the fact that I’m dealing with a total value of £220,000. Before imposing that uplift, I find the starting point is three years six months.

I’ve got to consider additional harm characteristics. The items here that were stolen had substantial value to the losers, there was a high level of inconvenience caused and there was consequential financial harm to the victims; in fact, there was quite significant emotional harm to the victims in this particular case as is evidenced by the victim impact statements.

...

As far as aggravating features are concerned, I have already referenced the fact that you are well over the starting point of £100,000 upon which category 1 is based, you also both have previous convictions. The offence was committed either when you were subject to being released under investigation or subject to a suspended sentence order respectively and in my view you were stealing these goods to order. When I take all of those factors into account, including the additional harm factors and the value, it moves the case up to a starting point of five years’ imprisonment.

I’ve then got to consider mitigating factors. I do take into account the passage of time as a mitigating factor for both of you as far as this offending is concerned. You have both to some extent prayed in aid mental health as one of the background factors. Mr Sami, on your behalf in particular it’s suggested that, whilst you did not have a legally defined mental illness, you were clearly suffering from some sort of trauma across your childhood and into your adulthood. There is no expert evidence before me to indicate that you had a long-standing mental health condition and that’s what your advocate means when she says no legally defined mental illness.

There is a guideline I have to consider on sentencing offenders with mental disorders and that guideline invites me to make an assessment as to whether or not either of your mental health had a significant impact on your culpability when it came to committing these offences and I’m afraid to say I don’t find that it impacted on your culpability at all. If it did it was to such a limited extent that it makes no real difference to the sentence. It does seem to me that both of you have a mental health background that I can, however, take into account as being some mitigation notwithstanding the fact that it doesn’t, it seems to me, impact on your culpability and I do to that extent treat it as a mitigating feature.

As a result of those mitigating features, I reduce what otherwise would have been a sentence of five years to one of four years and three months, put another way, a sentence of 51 months."