R v Samura Madhi & Anor [2025] EWCA Crim 1401

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 is not to 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 1401
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT TEESSIDE
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE STEAD) [17SM1764523]
Case No 2024/03931/B4 & 2024/04071/B4 Tuesday 14 October 2025
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE WARBY
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER
HER HONOUR JUDGE DE BERTODANO
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
____________________
R EX
- v -
SAMURA MADHI
MOHAMMED AMIN GERAVANDIAN
____________________
Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_____________________
Mr P Rooney appeared on behalf of the Appellant Samura Mahdi
Mr R Hunt appeared on behalf of the Appellant Mohamed Amin Geravandian
Mr N Dry appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
A P P R O V E D J U D G M E N T
Between
Samura Madhi & AnorDefendantRCrownDate 2025-10-14
[1]An order has been made in this case under section 45A of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. One of the witnesses is under the age of 18. An order has been made that no matter relating to him shall be published that would be likely to identify him to the public as having been concerned in these proceedings. This order will remain in force for his lifetime.[2]The offences with which we are concerned all relate to the stabbing of Jack Pheasey-Rattigan on 20 November 2023 in Middlesbrough bus station. It is convenient to refer to the alleged offences by reference to the version of the indictment dated 17 April 2024.[3]Each of the appellants appeals with leave granted by the single judge against a sentence imposed on him on 8 October 2024 in the Crown Court at Teesside on a count of attempted murder (count 1). On the same occasion a sentence was imposed on each defendant on another count.[4]On 20 December 2023, the appellant Samura Mahdi pleaded guilty to having with him in a public place an article with a blade or point (count 3) and also to causing grievous bodily harm with intent (count 2), which was an alternative to count 1. However, the plea to count 2 was not considered to be acceptable by the Crown.[5]Following a trial, on 17 May 2024 the appellant Mahdi was convicted on count 1 and the appellant Mohammed Geravandian was convicted on count 1 and also on count 4, which charged an offence of failing to disclose the key to protected information, namely the PIN code to his mobile telephone, contrary to section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.[6]The sentences imposed were as follows. Mahdi was sentenced to 24 years' detention in a young offender institution on count 1 and to a concurrent term of six months' detention on count 3. Geravandian was sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment on count 1 and to a consecutive term of nine months' imprisonment on count 4.[7]When the appellants attempted to murder Mr Pheasey-Rattigan, Mr Mahdi was 17 years and three months old and Mr Geravandian had just turned 21. They went to the bus station at about 5 pm. Mr Pheasey-Rattigan was there with his girlfriend, Lexi Sturman, who had previously been in a brief relationship with Mr Mahdi. Mr Mahdi had with him a large, serrated knife. The judge was not sure that Mr Geravandian had a weapon, but he was satisfied that Mr Geravandian both knew that Mr Mahdi had a knife and intended that Mr Pheasey-Rattigan would be killed. Indeed, that was the effect of the jury's verdict.[8]The appellants covered their faces and approached Mr Pheasey-Rattigan. A fight started, initially between Mr Geravandian and Mr Pheasey-Rattigan. Mr Mahdi then produced his knife and stabbed Mr Pheasey-Rattigan repeatedly. He caused at least seven stab wounds, which caused a fractured rib, a collapsed lung, damage to his liver and damage to a kidney, which had to be removed. Mr Pheasey-Rattigan was in hospital for about two months, during which he missed his mother's cremation. At one stage he nearly died in the operating theatre. Nine months later he remained in pain and his mobility was limited. He could not run or walk for long distances.[9]The offence was committed in the presence of members of the public, including at least one young child. The appellants were later caught on camera disposing of clothing and of a large kitchen knife.[10]In custody, Mr Mahdi was to boast about what he had done.[11]Mr Mahdi's previous convictions included one offence of robbery and two offences of possessing a knife in public, all committed in 2022, and one offence of assaulting an emergency worker, committed in 2023.[12]Mr Geravandian had no previous convictions.[13]The court had the benefit of pre-sentence reports and psychiatric reports on each of the appellants and a psychological report on Mr Geravandian.[14]Mr Mahdi was born in the United Kingdom, but lived between the ages of 5 and 11 in Saudi Arabia. During that period his mother left the family home, which was a cause of considerable distress. He was assessed as vulnerable and became a child in care in March 2022. After the offence, Mr Mahdi was diagnosed with ADHD and a decision was made that there were conclusive grounds that he was a victim of modern slavery. Dr Thorpe, a consultant psychiatrist, was of the opinion that he was vulnerable and impulsive and that he had a low IQ. The judge found him to be immature for his age.[15]Mr Mahdi wrote a letter to the judge in which he said that he was sorry for his actions, but at the same time he denied that his intention had been to kill Mr Pheasey-Rattigan. There was also a character reference for Mr Mahdi.[16]Mr Geravandian came to this country from Iran in 2014. He experienced difficulties in secondary school because he did not speak English, at least to begin with. When interviewed by the probation officer, Mr Geravandian maintained his innocence.[17]It was not disputed that the attempted murder fell within category B2 in the relevant sentencing guideline, with a starting point of 25 years' custody and a range from 20 to 30 years. The judge took account of the aggravating and mitigating factors and arrived at a sentence of 24 years' custody for each appellant. In doing so, he said as follows:
"… superficially at least, someone might think that I have not given Mahdi an adequate discount for his being under 18; 17 years and three months. The fact is I have but I have also afforded a similar discount to Geravandian for different reasons which attach to him."
[18]There are three grounds of appeal in Mr Mahdi's case, although Mr Rooney, who appears on his behalf, quite properly did not address us on the second and third of those grounds. The first is that the judge did not attach sufficient weight to Mr Mahdi's vulnerabilities and his youth. The second is that the judge failed to set out numerically the increase or uplift he had applied to the starting point to reflect the aggravating factors. The third is that the judge failed to set out with transparency what consideration he had given in respect of an adequate discount for the appellant being under 18.[19]There is no merit in the second and third grounds. As was stated in in R v Hallam [2025] EWCA 199; [2025] 4 WLR 33 at [26(iii)]:
"… As a general proposition, a sentencing judge is not obliged to attribute specific percentage values or figures to individual factors which have been taken into account in the sentencing exercise: see for example R v Ratcliffe [2024] EWCA Crim 1498 at [81]. …"
[20]The principal ground of appeal in Mr Geravandian's case is that the judge did not give sufficient weight to his youth, his troubled background and his lack of previous convictions. It is also contended that the judge should not have imposed a consecutive sentence on count 4, but there is no merit in that submission. It was plainly appropriate to impose a consecutive sentence for an offence under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which was a completely separate offence from the attempted murder. Of course, the total sentence had to observe the totality principle.[21]In our judgment there were a significant number of aggravating factors applicable to both appellants. The injuries caused, including the loss of a kidney, placed the offence at the higher end of the range for an offence causing category 2 harm.[22]As for culpability, there were two factors present which made this case one of high culpability: the offender took a knife or other weapon to the scene intending to commit any offence, or to have it available to use as a weapon, and used that knife or other weapon in committing the offence; and planning or premeditation of murder. The offences were committed in the presence of members of the public. Mr Mahdi's previous convictions also constituted an aggravating factor in his case.[23]The mitigating factors in Mr Mahdi's case were his youth, his mental health, including his low IQ, and his vulnerability. Overall, we consider that these significantly outweigh the aggravating factors in his case and that a sentence of 24 years' custody was manifestly excessive. We quash that sentence and substitute a sentence of 18 years' detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020.[24]We also quash the concurrent sentence imposed on him on count 3. Section 250 does not apply to that offence. The only custodial sentence which could be imposed on that count was a detention and training order, but it is inappropriate to impose two different types of custodial sentence on an offender. Accordingly, we order no separate penalty on count 3, in accordance with the guidance in R v Kovalkov [2023] EWCA Crim 1509. Count 3 was subject to the mandatory minimum term provisions of section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020, but the imposition of a long custodial sentence of a different kind on count 1 constitutes an exceptional circumstance which justifies not imposing the minimum term on count 3.[25]The mitigating factors in Mr Geravandian's case are that he had no previous convictions and that he was only just 21 years of age at the time of the offence. Although he experienced some difficulties when he first came to this country, that was nine years before the offending. He was not diagnosed with any mental health conditions. He was found guilty as a secondary party, but that fact has to be seen in the context that he was much older than Mahdi, who was vulnerable and open to exploitation. Although the judge was entitled to conclude that the mitigating factors in his case outweighed to a certain extent the aggravating factors, we do not consider that the sentence of 24 years' imprisonment imposed on him was manifestly excessive.[26]Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal. ______________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________