R v Adeel Sami & Anor [2025] EWCA Crim 1115

[2025] EWCA Crim 1115Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 31 July 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMR JUSTICE JOHNSONHIS HONOUR JUDGE CONRAD KC
REX
Between
ADEEL SAMIADAM SALEM
Karina Arden appeared for Appellant SamiNicholas Evans appeared for Appellant Salem
Approved Judgment
[1]On 7 February 2024 the appellants, who we shall refer to as Mr Sami and Mr Salem, were convicted by a jury at St Albans Crown Court of an offence of conspiracy to steal. The trial judge was His Honour Judge Roques. On 12 December 2024, each appellant was sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment. Each now appeals against that sentence with the leave of the single judge.[2]At the same time as being sentenced for the offence with which we are concerned, Mr Salem also fell to be sentenced for a series of drug offences to which he had pleaded guilty in November 2023. Those offences had been committed in July 2019. There is no appeal against the sentence imposed for the drug offences. There was at the time of sentencing some uncertainty whether Mr Salem had been on bail or released under investigation when he committed the offence of conspiracy to steal. We agree with the sentencing judge that it makes little or no difference whether he was on bail or under investigation; in either event he went ahead and committed the offence with which we are primarily concerned.

The facts

[3]Between 27 June and 28 July 2022 four high-value vehicles were stolen from driveways in High Wycombe, Harpenden and Watford. Overnight on 28 June 2022 the complainant Mr Gopalai left his grey Range Rover Sport parked on his driveway in High Wycombe. He woke up at 7.30 am the next morning to find that it had been stolen without its keys. The vehicle was valued at £70,000. The Range Rover was recovered from Woodford Green. The vehicle's tracking company provided information that it had been stolen at 6.06 am and was left in Woodford Green at 7.13 am. ANPR cameras found the stolen vehicle travelling in convoy with a Mercedes, one of two vehicles which had been rented by the appellant Mr Salem.[4]The second vehicle was stolen overnight on 14 July 2022 from a road in Watford. The complainant, Mrs Kang, noticed that her vehicle had been stolen when she woke in the morning, having parked it on her driveway at around midnight. The vehicle was a Land Rover Discovery, worth £65,000. The complainant's vehicle was not captured on ANPR but the second of Mr Salem's hire cars was. This was a Mercedes E200 and was captured in the Watford area at the same time as the vehicle was stolen.[5]The third and fourth thefts occurred overnight on 26 July 2022 in Harpenden. The complainant Mr Reece's black Range Rover Velar, worth approximately £46,500, was stolen from Douglas Road and the complainant Mr Gurbuz's silver Range Rover Velar, worth just under £40,000, was stolen from Brackendale Grove. Mr Gurbuz's neighbour, Mr Porter, told the police that he saw on his CCTV footage that the vehicle had been stolen at 4.31 am. ANPR showed the two vehicles being driven in convoy with Mr Salem's rented Mercedes E200 as they all moved clockwise round the M25 and into the northeast of London. The total value of the four thefts was just over £220,000. Only one of the stolen vehicles was recovered, that being Mr Gopalai's grey Range Rover Sport, the first one to have been stolen.[6]The appellant Mr Salem was arrested on 26 July 2022 in the Mercedes E200. His home address was searched, and drugs were found, about which we need say no more.[7]Cell site data was analysed and showed the appellants moving from the location of their home addresses in Romford and Ilford. They were noted to have travelled to the offence locations, spending up to several hours there before returning to their home addresses. Call data showed the appellants in communication with each other in the lead up to the offences being committed. There were periods of quiet when the thefts were being committed before communications started again on the return journeys.[8]Mr Salem was further interviewed on 9 February 2023 and again answered no comment to all questions put to him.[9]Mr Sami was interviewed on 17 February 2023 and provided a prepared statement simply denying being involved in a conspiracy.

Victim impact statements

[10]There were two victim impact statements. One victim, Mr Gurbuz, said that the appellant's theft of their car had affected his family both emotionally and financially. The family felt very nervous at home and became obsessed with checking the outside of their home lest someone had come back. As a result, they had installed further security at a cost of £845. The other statement was from Mrs Kang, who described feeling "incredibly violated", quite apart from the fact of the inconvenience caused by the theft of their only car which she described. She too had invested in additional security at significant costs to make her and her children feel safe again.

Antecedents

[11]As recorded by the judge when sentencing the appellants, each had extensive criminal records.[12]Mr Sami had 14 previous convictions for 19 offences. These included going equipped in 2011 and various driving offences. On 29 September 2020 he had been sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months for possession of a knife, which meant that at the time he committed the conspiracy to steal, he would have been in breach of that suspended sentence. In November 2023 he was convicted of driving with excess alcohol on 12 January 2022, which put him in breach of the same suspended sentence and was dealt with by a financial penalty. The judge decided in those circumstances not to resentence him for the breach of the suspended sentence.[13]As for Mr Salem, he had 16 previous convictions for 46 offences. There were various driving offences including driving whilst disqualified. There was a single burglary but that was an old offence. He had a number of convictions for failing to comply with previous court orders, and in November 2022 he was convicted of possession with intent to supply psychoactive substances. That related to the events of July 2019, as a result of which he was either on bail or released under investigation. As we have already said, it makes no real difference whether it was one or the other. The sentencing hearing Pre-sentence report: Mr Sami

The sentencing hearing

[14]The pre-sentence report for Mr Sami recorded that he was the carer for his ex-partner and had parental responsibility for their three children. It was said that he was no longer using cocaine or cannabis. A risk assessment assessed him as posing a medium risk of reoffending within 2 years.

Pre-sentence report: Mr Salem

[15]The presentence report for Mr Salem reported that he had undertaken the conspiracy to make money to feed a drug habit. He was in work. His response to previous supervision had been poor. He was assessed as posing a high risk of reconviction.

Character references for Mr Sami

[16]A long-standing friend said that he had always found Mr Sami to be trustworthy and hard working. His mother provided a detailed letter in the course of which she apologised for his behaviour and spoke of the difficulties they had experienced as a family with Mr Sami's father being largely absent. She spoke of him being a good father and a loving and caring son. His partner wrote explaining that her disability and lack of mobility made her dependent upon Mr Sami as there were many things she could not do. She spoke of a period after the death of his grandfather when he became extremely depressed and could not cope. This was supported by a letter from his GP who reported that Mr Sami was diagnosed as suffering from depression in October 2022 and was making a slow recovery.

Character reference for Mr Salem

[17]A character reference was provided by the managing director of a business for whom Mr Salem had worked on a voluntary basis and who would be happy to keep him on if circumstances allowed. He was described as having a strong work ethic and always being willing to learn and help others.

The prosecution's case at trial

[18]The prosecution's case at trial was summarised at paragraphs 38 to 40 of a Sentencing Note which referred to the Theft guidelines and said:
"38. The Crown place this into the top of category B culpability. There is a level of coordination and planning (obtaining the device, finding the vehicles, hiring the car, coordinating the journey, drop-off sites for onward sale et cetera) to the offences that arguably places it into category A. However, the use of the hire car in the defendant's own name, using their own mobile phones and keeping them on, enabling the defendants to be tracked to the locations, and then driving in convoy together on the return journey are all factors, the Crown say, mean the offences fall below the requisite level of sophistication to put it into culpability A. 39. Harm is Category 1 as the starting point is £100,000 and the total value is over £220,000, which elevates it upwards in category 1. However, even without the victim personal statements, the Crown submit that there are obvious significant additional harm factors present elevating it further up category 1 and potentially outside the category range: (a) items stolen were of substantial value to the loser regardless of monetary worth; (b) high level of inconvenience caused; (c) consequential financial harm to the victim."
[19]We are told that the defence agreed that the case fell within category 1B of the Theft guideline, and we accept that that is so.[20]The starting point for a category 1B substantive offence of theft would be 2 years' custody with a category range from 1 year to 3 years 6 months' custody. A starting point for a category 1A substantive offence would be 3 years 6 months' custody with a category range from 2 years 6 months to 6 years' custody. Category 1 is accompanied by a note that "adjustment should be made for any significant additional harm factors where very high-value goods are stolen". Category 1 includes cases of very high-value goods stolen to a value above £100,000 or high value high value stolen goods (£10,000 to £100,000) with significant additional harm to the victim or others. It is worth remarking at this stage that the value of each car would have put the theft of that vehicle into category 2 high value unless the level of additional harm was significant, as evidenced by the two witness impact statements, in which case a single theft could have been elevated to category 1.

The sentencing remarks

[21]In the course of summarising the facts, the judge said that the appellants and another co-defendant played an equal role in the conspiracy. The judge said:
"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.[22]The

judge then approached the starting point and adjustments to it logically and coherently as follows:

"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."

The grounds of appeal

[23]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.[24]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.

Discussion and resolution

[25]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.[26]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.[27]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.[28]There were substantial aggravating features here, as the judge correctly identified. The uplift to five years is amply justified by: i) the value over and above the threshold value of £100,000. ii) the appellants' antecedents and in particular the fact that Mr Sami was in breach of a suspended sentence and Mr Salem conducted the conspiracy while either on bail or subject to police investigation, and iii) the impact on the losers of the vehicles as evidenced by the two victim impact statements.[29]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.[30]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.