R v Mohammed Qasim [2025] EWCA Crim 1248

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 1248Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Thursday 4 September 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE COULSONMRS JUSTICE MAYMR JUSTICE PEPPERALL
Between
REXCrownV
Between
MOHAMMED QASIM__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR H ZAHIR KC appeared for Appellant.MR R BARRACLOUGH KC & MR T ROBINSON appeared for Crown._________JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal against the minimum term imposed for an offence of murder, for which leave was granted by the Full Court sitting on 23 May 2025. On 22 April 2024, in the Crown Court at Birmingham, the appellant (then aged 24) was convicted after a trial of conspiracy to rob and murder. On 26 April 2024, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 29 years and 142 days being 30 years less the amount of time he had by then spent on remand. Facts of the offending[2]On 22 September 2022, Richard Hopley was stabbed and killed whilst sitting in his car in Underwood Close, Birmingham. This was a busy shopping and residential area. At the time Mr Hopley was the driver for a man called Asad Hussain, who was selling drugs in the Birmingham area. Mr Hopley was stabbed in the chest. After the stabbing he was able to drive the car for a short distance away from the area before he fell unconscious and crashed into a parked car in Metchley Lane close to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Mr Hopley was found collapsed in the driver's seat. Asad Hussain ran off.[3]As counsel for the appellant in his advice and grounds has specifically accepted the accuracy of the judge's outline of events at paragraphs 4 to 14 of his written Sentencing Note, I take the facts with gratitude to the judge from his excellent summary: “4….[I]n the autumn of 2022 Ayub Khan was a drug dealer selling class A drugs in the Harborne area of Birmingham. At trial, the prosecution suggested that Mohammed Qasim was a drug addict who worked for Khan as a runner. On the basis of the evidence heard during Qasim’s trial I cannot be sure of this proposition and I therefore approach Qasim on the basis that he was a drug addict who obtained his drugs from Khan. Two other men, named Nicholas Stallard and Paul Hayles were also customers of Khan. At some stage during the morning, or early afternoon of 22 September these four men formed an agreement to rob another local drug dealer, named Asad Hussain. Hussain and Khan were rivals in the Harborne area and this, together with the potential profit from the offence, is likely to be the reason Hussain was targeted.[5]The agreed plan was to lure Asad Hussain to a particular location and then rob him of drugs and/or cash. Such a robbery could only realistically be achieved by the use of significant threats backed up by the production of a weapon. To that end, Qasim was armed with a knife and all parties were aware of that fact. Having heard the evidence, I am in no doubt that Ayub Khan was also armed with a weapon of some description.[6]Stallard had been a customer of Asad Hussain and therefore knew the number of his drugs line and was aware of the way in which he did business. Against this background, just after 2 PM, Ayub Khan’s phone was used to call Asad Hussain’s drugs phone and the caller arranged a drugs purchase in Underwood close which is near to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Edgbaston. That location was chosen as the place of the intended robbery, because it was relatively nearby, it contained an alleyway where the robbers could lie in wait and off the back of that alleyway, was a gully which led away from the scene and therefore provided a suitable escape route.[7]Following the phone call, the four men walked the short distance to Underwood close. Mohammad Qasim and Ayub Khan both had the hoods on their coats up so as to conceal their faces. Upon arrival, the four men gathered in the alleyway which led off the main part of Underwood close. They did so in order to conceal their presence from Asad Hussain who they expected to arrive in the next few minutes. In fact, Hussain was delayed which led to Ayub Khan texting and phoning him repeatedly to ask about his whereabouts. Khan then passed the phone to Qasim who made a similar enquiry. Mr Hussain eventually arrived in a VW Passat being driven by Richard Hopley at 2:50 PM. By that time the four men had been waiting for a little over half an hour.[8]As Mr Hopley pulled up, Qasim was stood on the corner waiting for him, whilst Khan was a short distance away in front of a shop. Hayles and Stallard were waiting in the alleyway and by this time, had both taken steps to cover their faces with masks of some description. Qasim got into the front passenger seat of the Passat and Mr Hopley then began to turn the car around. Qasim then took out a knife, with a 10 centimetres blade, and demanded that Hussain hand over his stock of drugs. Mr Hussain did so whereupon Qasim sought to locate the door handle in order to exit the car. At that point, Richard Hopley grabbed him, causing at least some of the drugs to be scattered around the car. Mr Hopley then released Qasim, probably because he needed to control the vehicle, which by this time had driven onto a grass verge. Qasim, no doubt frustrated by his inability to leave the car, then demanded cash, whilst still brandishing his knife.[9]As this was happening, Nicholas Stallard ran from the side road, opened the driver’s door and sought to remove the ignition key. He did so to assist Qasim and probably because he feared that Mr Hopley was going to drive away before Qasim could leave the vehicle. Mr Hopley reacted by reversing, which caused Stallard to fall to the ground where he was dragged backwards by the moving car. As that happened, Paul Hayles ran towards the vehicle in an effort to assist. As he arrived, the Passat moved suddenly forward and then stopped again, leaving Hayles and Stallard about a car length behind. They then ran forward to catch up to the vehicle and Hayles then used an implement of some sort to smash the driver’s side window.[10]As those things were taking place, Qasim was still in the car and the effect of Mr Hussain’s evidence is that he was panicking. In those circumstances, he lunged towards Richard Hopley with the knife and stabbed him to the left side of his chest. That blow was delivered with severe force such that it severed Mr Hopley’s fifth rib before entering his heart. Having stabbed Mr Hopley, Qasim managed to open the front passenger door and got out of the car. He left with a quantity of drugs but the cash which he had demanded, was never actually handed over.[11]Mr Hopley managed to drive away in the direction of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital but before he could get there, he lost consciousness and crashed into a parked vehicle. His injury led to rapid blood loss and then cardiac arrest. Members of the public and then paramedics sought to assist but tragically his heart could not be restarted.[12]Meanwhile Mohammad Qasim, together with Hayles and Stallard, fled down the alleyway and through a gully which ran between a row of garages. They met up with Khan whereupon Qasim discarded his knife in undergrowth. The four men then separated into 3 groups in an attempt to make themselves less conspicuous and began to walk back up the main road towards Hayles’ flat. Qasim was initially ahead of the others, and his route took him towards the now crashed VW Passat. He saw the car and realising that the police would be on their way, he turned around and rejoined the others who were walking up behind him. Following a brief discussion, the four men then separated into two groups and made their way separately back to Paul Hayles’ flat. The two groups took different routes which avoided main roads, and all sought to change their appearance by either removing items of clothing or swapping clothes amongst themselves.[13]Thereafter, they learnt of the death of Richard Hopley, and all sought to avoid arrest with varying degrees of sophistication and success. Qasim and Khan fled to Pakistan on 24th and 26th September respectively. Paul Hayles remained in the Birmingham area and was arrested on 26 September. Nicholas Stallard travelled to Bristol was arrested in that city on the evening of 26 September. Qasim chose to return from Pakistan on 15 September 2023 and was arrested at Birmingham airport. “[4]The judge noted that the appellant did not return because he felt any remorse for what he had done, instead he came back believing he could lie his way out of trouble. He represented to the jury that he knew nothing of any plan to rob a drug dealer and suggested that Asad Hussain had accidently stabbed Mr Hopley in the course of resisting the attack on his vehicle launched by Stallard and Hayles. The judge concluded at paragraph 14 of his Sentencing Note:
"... this was the planned ambush and robbery of a drug dealer in circumstances where [the appellant] was armed with a knife which he intended to produce in order to reinforce his demands and as events demonstrated was prepared to use if necessary. It is [likely] that the plan to rob Asad Hussain was conceived by Ayub Khan but on any view of matters [the appellant] played a central role in the execution of that plan. He was present when the phone call was made to Asad Hussain for arranging the meeting; he was the person who acted as the drugs purchaser; he was armed with a knife and he was the person that used it to kill Richard Hopley. This was a single blow but it was delivered with severe force to a vulnerable part of the body and I have no doubt that at the time of the stabbing [the appellant] intended to kill."
Sentence[5]The judge sentenced without a pre-sentence report. We confirm, pursuant to section 33 of the Sentencing Act 2020, that one was unnecessary. There were full Sentencing Notes from the Crown and defence as would be expected in a case such as this. We have read them carefully. We have also read the victim personal statements of Marilyn Warner (Richard Hopley's mother) speaking of the grief and loss which she and her husband have experienced. Richard Hopley was their only son. She called him their "miracle baby". They were unable to have any other children.[6]The judge observed that for the purpose of sentence the conspiracy to rob offence would be wholly subsumed within the minimum term for murder given his conclusion that the murder was committed "during the course of a robbery" and accordingly fell within paragraph 3(2)(c) of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, where the starting point for a minimum term has been set by Parliament at 30 years.[7]The judge went on to consider aggravating and mitigating features. He said that he took the detailed planning for the robbery into account to a limited extent, pointing out that any murder for gain will involve some degree of planning. He declined to treat the use of the knife as an additional aggravating factor, taking the view that production/use of a dangerous weapon was already incorporated into the 30-year starting point. He identified disposing of the knife and SIM card or phone and fleeing to Pakistan as more weighty aggravating factors.[8]Turning to mitigation, the judge accepted that the appellant was vulnerable and that he had been exploited by Ayub Khan acting under the latter's direction. The killing had not been premeditated but it was a planned robbery in which the appellant had armed himself with a knife which he was prepared to use if necessary. The judge had by then already concluded that the appellant intended to kill Mr Hopley when he stabbed him, as we have noted above. As he pointed out, this was not an aggravating factor but rather a lack of mitigation. As to personal mitigation, the judge noted that the appellant had been 22 at the time and that he was "a young man who had probably not attained full maturity". He also noted that the appellant was of previous good character. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors which he identified, the judge passed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years less the time already spent on remand resulting in the minimum term we have identified of 29 years 142 days. Grounds of appeal[9]Hossein Zahir KC represented the appellant at trial and sentence as he does on this appeal. He accepts that the judge was right to find that this was a murder falling within paragraph 3 of Schedule 21 and that 30 years was accordingly the correct starting point. He argues that although the judge correctly identified aggravating features of planning, although to a limited extent, and conduct after the killing, these could only have justified a small increase from the 30-year starting point. By contrast he submits the appellant's youth and vulnerability taken together with the lack of premeditation and previous good character ought to have resulted in a minimum term considerably lower than 30 years. He says that the balancing act should more fairly have reflected the fact that the appellant was a vulnerable drug addict being exploited by an older, more crime-experienced dealer. He submits that a proper balance of aggravating and mitigating factors ought to have resulted in the mitigating factors heavily outweighing the aggravating ones.[10]The prosecution has put in a Respondent's Notice, as ordered by the Full Court when granting leave, which we have seen and considered. Mr Barraclough has today emphasised that the judge took onto account vulnerability and recognised that the appellant had not attained full maturity. The judge heard and saw the appellant in the witness box and considered all the evidence at the trial, as he did at the previous trial of Stallard and Haynes. Mr Barraclough points, for instance, to the fact that the appellant took the role of customer in the car, that he led the way through the alleys away from the scene and that he escaped from the jurisdiction returning only after others had been dealt with. Decision[11]We are unable to accept Mr Zahir's submissions, cogent and attractively put as they were. There is no dispute about the correct starting point under Schedule 21 which was 30 years. This very experienced judge heard all the evidence at two trials and was best placed to identify and weigh up the competing aggravating and mitigating factors. Mr Zahir has been unable to point to anything which the judge left out in undertaking that balance.[12]We add only this in relation to considerations of youth in the context of a murder case. The current table at paragraph 5A of Schedule 21, setting out starting points for minimum terms in respect of child defendants aged 14 to 17, leaves little room for manoeuvre to a judge in allowing for youth and immaturity when it comes to sentencing a child or young adult for murder. The case of ZA to which Mr Zahir and junior counsel Mr Khatak referred in their advice and grounds did not involve a murder sentence. In enacting the graduated starting points for murder in paragraph 5A, Parliament must be presumed to have taken account of the developing levels of maturity attained by children up to the age of 18 and for young adults beyond that. Parliament has decided that a judge sentencing a 17-year-old must take a starting point for the minimum term of 27 years for a murder which, if committed by someone aged 18 or over, would fall into paragraph 3 where the starting point is 30 years. Accordingly, Parliament must have intended that a particularly serious murder committed by an 18-year-old will engage the paragraph 3 starting point of 30 years or very near to it. This appellant was aged 22, some years older than 18, when he murdered Richard Hopley. Where there is evidence of a particular immaturity in a child or young adult then a court may be justified in moving down from the starting point in Schedule 21 on the basis that a young person's chronological age may not always reflect their actual level of maturity (see R v Kamarra-Jarra [2024] EWCA Crim 198). But there was no evidence before the court of a particular immaturity in the case of this appellant.[13]For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal, with gratitude to counsel as ever for their helpful submissions.