R v Said Mohammed & Anor [2025] EWCA Crim 613

[2025] EWCA Crim 613Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 8 April 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMR JUSTICE BRYANHIS HONOUR JUDGE MANSELL KC(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
SAID MOHAMMEDSHAMREZ MOHAMMED_________MR A BAJWA KC appeared for Appellant and Applicant._________APPROVED JUDGMENT
[1]On 8 November 2021 in the Crown Court at Luton (His Honour Judge Evans) the appellant Said (“Said”) and the applicant Shamrez (“Shamrez”) (then aged 22 and 36 respectively) pleaded guilty to various counts on the indictment. Said pleaded guilty to Count 1 (ABH), Count 2 (Attempt to Cause GBH), Count 5 (Attempt to Cause GBH) and Count 8 (Attempt to Cause GBH). Shamrez pleaded guilty to Count 1 (ABH), Count 2 (Attempt to Cause GBH), Count 5 (Attempt to Cause GBH), Count 7 (ABH) and Count 9 (GBH with Intent).[2]On 29 September 2023 His Honour Judge Alan Blake (the “Judge”) sentenced Said (then aged 24) as follows:-• 4 years’ imprisonment for Attempt to Cause GBH (Count 8);• 3 years 9 months’ imprisonment (consecutive) for Attempt to Cause GBH (Count 2);• 3 years’ imprisonment (consecutive) for Attempt to Cause GBH (Count 5); and• 1 year’s imprisonment (concurrent) for Assault Occasioning ABH (Count 1). A total sentence of 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. Count 3 (Burglary) and Counts 4 and 6 (Affray) were ordered to lie on file against him in the usual terms.[3]The same day (29 September 2023) the Judge sentenced Shamrez (then aged 38) as follows:-• 10 years 6 months’ imprisonment for Causing GBH with Intent (Count 9);• 4 years’ imprisonment (consecutive) for Attempt to Cause GBH (Count 2);• 3 years 4 months’ imprisonment (concurrent) for Attempt to Cause GBH (Count 5);• 2 years 6 months’ imprisonment (concurrent) for Assault Occasioning ABH (Count 7); and• 1 year 3 months’ imprisonment (concurrent) for Assault Occasioning ABH (count 1) A total sentence of 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Count 3 (Burglary) and Counts 4 and 6 (Affray) were ordered to lie on file against him in the usual terms.[4]A co-accused, Mohammed Shakeel (“Shakeel”), pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 5 and was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused by the Single Judge, and has not been renewed.[5]Said appeals against sentence with limited leave of the Single Judge (who also granted the necessary extension of time), such leave relating only to Ground 5 in relation to Count 8 (correct reduction for guilty plea and adjustment for age/lack of maturity) and Ground 6 (total sentence). He renews his application for leave to appeal on all the remaining grounds of appeal.[6]Shamrez renews his application for an extension of time of 116 days in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the Single Judge.[7]Fresh Counsel, Mr Ali Naseem Bajwa KC appears on behalf of both Said and Shamrez.[8]Turning to the facts, which relate to what can only be described as a campaign of brutal, callous and horrific, violent offending by the defendants who, as rogue landlords, inflicted serious violence on, variously, their tenants and vulnerable homeless people, set against the backdrop of a very substantial family property portfolio of some £40 million-odd. Said and Shamrez acted together with the co-defendants Shakeel and Steve Mohammed (“Mohammed”). The violence inflicted on the victims was video recorded. We will set out the facts relating to each Count in turn. Count 1 (ABH - Said and Shamrez)[9]On 19 February 2019 Said, Shamrez and Mohammed assaulted Harry Hughes in the basement of the Old BT Tower, St John’s Street, Bedford. Mr Hughes was homeless and sleeping rough. He went to the tower to find somewhere warm to sleep. He left his bicycle at the basement and then walked up the stairs. He was confronted by the defendants who accused him of being a “thieving bastard”. They marched him downstairs and searched his bag where they found bolt croppers. They then struck Mr Hughes with the bolt croppers, smashing him in the legs, feet, shins, face and head. They took his jacket and trainers, leaving him with just a T-shirt and jogging bottoms. They stuck the bolt croppers down his trousers, leaving him with scratches to his genitals. Mr Hughes stated he thought the incident lasted around 15 to 20 minutes.[10]A series of videos of the assault were found on the phone of Shakeel after he was arrested. The videos showed the complainant being assaulted and showed his injuries. They also showed him being forced to apologise to the defendants and to admit that they were “not to be fucked with” and to kiss their shoes.[11]Mr Hughes was examined that morning at Bedford Hospital. He was hobbling badly and had a swollen right cheek. He was swollen and tender over the lateral aspect of his right knee. He had lacerations to both shins. X-rays showed he had bruising to his face and knees. He was given a knee splint and crutches and his wounds were stitched and cleaned. Count 2 (Attempt to Cause GBH- Said and Shamrez)[12]On 21 June 2019 Said, Shamrez, Shakeel and Mohammed assaulted the complainant Mr Rahman at a studio flat he rented from them. There was a dispute in relation to a parking permit. The complainant did not want to have to pay for a new parking permit when he got a new car. There was an argument between the complainant and Shamrez’s wife (Gurya) resulting in the defendants suggesting they talk about the situation to sort it out in the complainant’s flat.[13]The four defendants attended at the complainant’s flat with Gurya and let themselves in despite the door being locked. When Mr Rahman challenged the applicant Shamrez about letting himself in without being invited, Shamrez responded by saying, “You’re a cunt, I run Bedford and don’t shout at my Mrs”. Shamrez then used sign language to Mohammed (who is deaf) and Mohammed grabbed Mr Rahman by the throat. The defendants then assaulted Mr Rahman. Shamrez hit him repeatedly with a baseball bat and threatened to kneecap Mr Rahman’s brother and friend if they did not leave. The defendants also pulled at Mr Rahman’s penis, punched him in the face and stamped on his chest. When Mr Rahman’s penis was being pulled and he told them to “get off my penis”, Shamrez told him, “Don’t move or he will rip your balls off”.[14]Shamrez told the others to hold the complainant down. He then picked up the complainant’s meat cleaver and moved it towards the complainant’s hand. The complainant moved his hand and sustained a cut on his left thumb. At that point it became apparent that the police had arrived. Said spat in the complainant’s face. Shamrez said to him, “See you’re not a gangster. I run Bedford”. The defendants tried to make it look like the complainant had attacked them and Gurya started crying. The defendants were arrested and interviewed but no further action was taken at that stage.[15]Mr Rahman attended at Bedford Hospital that evening. He had tenderness in the upper, middle and lower abdomen. He had subconjunctival bleeding in the right eye. His left testicle was painful. He had swelling and tenderness to his left ankle and tenderness to the right ankle. He was discharged with head injury advice and pain medication. A series of videos of the assault on Mr Rahman was found on Shakeel’s phone after he was arrested. Count 5 (Attempt to Cause GBH - Said and Shamrez)[16]On 15 October 2019, Said, Shamrez, Shakeel and Mohammed assaulted David Glenn in the basement of the Old BT Tower. This was the same location as in Count 1. David Glenn was homeless. The defendants found him in the car park of the tower and set about assaulting him. He was videoed saying, “I am a homeless guy”. The defendants threatened to cut off his penis, verbally threatened and abused him, kicked him in the shin, repeatedly kicked him over his body and hit him with a wooden baton. Videos of the assault were again found.[17]At the time Mr Glenn was wanted on a warrant for breach of his post-sentence supervision. On 16 October (i.e. the next day) he was located by an officer in a car park in Bedford. He was arrested and disclosed the assault and his injuries to the officer. Mr Glenn sustained superficial lacerations to the inside of his leg, a significant amount of abrasions to his back, reddening and slight bruising to his face, swelling to his nose and chin, damage to his teeth, significant bruising to his arms and legs and swelling and redness to his hand. Count 7 (ABH - Shamrez)[18]On 29 October Shamrez and Mohammed assaulted a man, Precious Enoch, at his home address which Mr Enoch rented from the defendants. Prior to this incident, the defendants wanted Mr Enoch to move out of the property and they switched off his gas and electricity. Mr Enoch refused to open the door when the defendants wanted to show the next potential tenant round. Mr Enoch tried to complain to Shamrez, but Shamrez and Mohammed forced their way into the property carrying a knife. Mr Enoch escaped by jumping out of a window. When he returned to the address he found that it had been trashed. Shamrez and Mohammed also ensured that Mr Enoch’s key fob would not work so he had to force his way back in.[19]The same day Shamrez and Mohammed themselves forced their way into the address. Mr Enoch was sitting on the sofa. He had a broken leg. The defendants hit him with his crutches and took the cast off his broken leg and hit him with it. They stood on his broken leg, broke his teeth with pliers and hit him with a hammer so he passed out. They threatened to “chop his balls off” and to set him on fire. They made him lick their shoes and they eventually threw him onto the street.[20]Videos of the assault were later found on Shakeel’s phone. They showed the complainant kissing the feet of Shamrez and Mohammed, begging for mercy, being assaulted and being forced to apologise. There were also videos of Mohammed swinging a baseball bat, and of the complainant on his knees as if praying and Shamrez saying, “My land, my fucking building, I pay the mortgage and you’re fucking going to go from here, now look at me”.[21]Mr Enoch reported the assault to the police. An officer met him in a nearby restaurant. He had a black eye and was distressed. He attended Bedford Hospital the next day (30 October 2019). He had bruising and swelling under his right eye, tenderness on his tummy and a fracture in three places to a bone in his face. Count 8 (Attempt to Cause GBH - Said)[22]On 22 April 2020 the complainant, Jaroslaw Wawrzyniak, was present at a property owned by the defendants. Said and another male were moving belongings for a tenant. The complainant was drinking beer and shouting to a neighbour outside of his property. Said told him he could not drink beer there. Said and the other male pushed the complainant’s bike away. The complainant then hit Said’s car with a wooden stick a number of times.[23]Said and the other male ran out of the property. They started punching the complainant multiple times. The complainant dropped his bike and tried to escape but Said and the other males knocked him to the floor. When he was on the floor they kicked him four times each, like a football, until he was motionless. Said and the other male then drove off before returning in a different vehicle and in different clothes.[24]An ambulance arrived to take the complainant to hospital. There were videos of the offence on both Shakeel and Said’s phones. A video was also made by an eye witness. Said was taunting the complainant as he was being kicked. The eye witness’s video showed the complainant being assaulted by two males whilst a crowd was gathered round.[25]The complainant was brought to the emergency department of Bedford Hospital. He had bruising below the right eye and blood in his left nostril. He was not able to move his limbs spontaneously. He had abrasions below the ribs on the right side of his abdomen, on his upper right arm, on his right hip and on both elbows. He had pain in both cheek bones and on the right side of his abdomen. His fourth left rib had a non-displaced fracture. Count 9 (GBH with Intent - Shamrez)[26]This involved the complainant Mr Glenn (who was also the complainant in Count 5). On 11 May 2020 Mr Glenn went to a flat in Bromham Apartments in Bedford to buy drugs from an acquaintance. The defendants were the landlords of the flat, and Shamrez and Mohammed happened to be there at the time the complainant attended.[27]Due to the previous assault on him, the complainant tried to leave the flat but he was grabbed by Mohammed and pushed against the door. The complainant ran to the window and leaned out, screaming for help and for the police to be called. Shamrez and Mohammed tried to pull the complainant back in, whilst another male tried to pull him out to help him escape.[28]The defendants succeeded in pulling him back in. They threw him to the floor and they both repeatedly kicked and punched him. Mohammed grabbed a metal pole and repeatedly struck the complainant with it. The complainant put his left leg up to defend himself. The pole struck it, breaking the leg and causing the foot to wave unnaturally.[29]The police were called. Shamrez managed to escape in his Mercedes before the police arrived. When an officer arrived at the address Mohammed let him in. The complainant was lying on the floor with his left leg up in the air, screaming with pain. An ambulance was called, and Mohammed was arrested.[30]The complainant was taken to Bedford Hospital. He had multiple injuries to his lower limbs and a wound to his right lower leg. He had two wounds to the lower left leg with a visible break to the bone consistent with an open fracture to the lower left leg. The injuries to Mr Glenn’s left leg were so severe that doctors had no choice but to amputate the leg.[31]Shakeel attended the address in a silver Mercedes and was arrested after trying to obtain a laptop from the vehicle despite the police telling him not to do so. His phone was seized and it was from this that most of the videos were recovered. Said attended to assist with the interpretation for Mohammed and he was then also arrested.[32]The videos of the offence against Mr Glenn were recovered from Shakeel’s phone, although he was not involved in the offence. The video showed Shamrez taunting Mr Glenn whilst Mohammed hit him with the pole. Shamrez repeatedly threatened to cut his balls off. Mr Glenn was forced to apologise. Shamrez told him, “I don’t care about your leg” and took the pole from Steve Mohammed who then punched Mr Glenn in the face five times. Mr Glenn was pleading about his leg which was spraying blood. Shamrez said, “Do we care? Get up.” Shamrez then said, “Right, listen motherfucker. Do you know who you are fucking with? Do you know you’ve come to the wrong block of flats to take drugs?” Mr Glenn continued to plead for his leg. Shamrez told him, “Shut up and listen. Sit against there now before I break you and chop your balls off”. In another video Mr Glenn was again forced to apologise and threatened by Shamrez. He was kicked twice in the head by Mohammed who also stood on his chest whilst Mr Glenn screamed in agony.[33]Shamrez was identified from the video evidence and handed himself into the police station on 19 May 2020 (8 days after the assault).[34]Said had previous minor motoring convictions. Shamrez had a number of previous convictions, though many some time ago, one of which was for battery.[35]There were pre-sentence reports in relation to each of Said and Shamrez. In relation to Said, the author of the report noted that Said demonstrated limited remorse for his involvement in the offences and attempted to justify his and his brothers’ behaviour stating that they were acting in self-defence whilst using excessive force. It was noted that Said showed a lack of insight into the impact his behaviour would have on others both physically and emotionally. The author considered that Said’s offences were motivated through a desire to exert power and control over those in less fortunate positions in order to make himself feel important and powerful, with him and his brothers believing themselves to be a force not to be messed with, and to be in control of Bedford. The videos appeared not to be records to be shown to the police (as Said had incredibly suggested) but trophies to demonstrate to others the consequences of what might happened should they be crossed. The author assessed Said as posing a high risk of serious harm towards members of the public and known adults, with the risk being greatest when in the presence of his brothers and working for their father’s property company.[36]The (different) author of the pre-sentence report in respect of Shamrez identified very similar traits in him, with a good deal of minimisation of the seriousness of the offences, a lack of victim empathy and victim blaming.Whilst Shamrez said he was very upset and should have known better and wished he could turn the clock back, the author’s view was that, overall, there appeared to be little understanding of the seriousness of the offences or much acceptance of responsibility and very little, if any, victim empathy. The motive for these offences was as self-proclaimed enforcers, taking the law into their own hands and inflicting gratuitous violence as a means of deterrence and control, with the level of violence being extraordinary. In interview Shamrez showed little emotion except when discussing the potential length of his own sentence and concern for his wife and children. Whilst some remorse was expressed the author identified serious thinking skills issues, very poor anger management and a lack of empathy for the victims. The fact that many of the offences were committed in concert with one or more of his brothers was also of concern and showed a degree of ruthlessness bordering on the obsessive.[37]Shamrez was assessed as a high risk of harm to the public and known adults, and the author remained unconvinced that he would not continue to be a risk in the community for the foreseeable future until he addressed his offending. There was an identified worrying display of power, humiliation of victims and an apparent enjoyment of the violence inflicted without any empathy.[38]There were defence sentencing notes on behalf of Said and Shamrez. Neither took any real issue with the prosecution categorisation of the offending under the guidelines. Each urged the judge to take a lead offence and make the others concurrent, treating them as aggravating factors, with regard being had to totality.[39]In terms of Said’s mitigation, the note in respect of Said identified his effective previous good character, age, lack of maturity and the dependency of his pregnant wife upon him, as well as the lack of offending in the time since the offences. It was noted that references before the Court showed a very different picture to the violent offending, of a man who had matured and now dedicated his time to being a kind and caring husband and committed employee.[40]In terms of Shamrez’s mitigation, the note in respect of Shamrez referred to numerous references before the Court which it was submitted showed him to be of positive good character, as a caring and loving husband, father and son, who was extremely hard working and juggled work with caring for his family who had various medical needs with three of his seven children having complex medical needs and a requirement of a special diet. His previous convictions were said to be not of relevance, and he had not reoffended in the last three years. He had also written a letter to the Judge on which he stated he was expressing his deep remorse for his actions, and taking full responsibility for the harm he had caused.[41]In his sentencing remarks the Judge noted that he was sentencing for the respective parts of Said, Shamrez and the co-defendant Shakeel, in a series of instances of extreme brutality, acting as rogue landlords and inflicting terror and vigilante physical violence on tenants and other vulnerable homeless people, with the videos showing a degree of gratification and even sadism and Shamrez, in particular, revelling in the dominance and fear he created, repeatedly declaring that he “owned Bedford” and stating that “Gangsters get fixed by real gangsters”, though he considered that the primary motivation was to create a culture of fear. The videos showed a real-time catalogue of the horror inflicted on a number of vulnerable individuals, with the Judge endorsing the words of the authors of the pre-sentence reports that this was repeat offending with a chilling lack of human empathy.[42]The Judge went through the catalogue of offending in relation to each defendant and addressed the relevant Guidelines and the categorisation of each offence within the Guidelines, and the aggravating factors that existed. He then considered the position of each defendant and their personal mitigation.[43]He identified Shamrez as the leader, being significantly older than the other defendants, with the videos showing him seeking to highlight his authority and menace as a self-styled real gangster. Express reference was made to the references before the Court, and having regard to the pre-sentence report the Judge concluded that if there was any remorse it was very limited, and carried precious little weight given that it came so belatedly and in the context of such serious offending. Express reference was also made to the personal mitigation, identifying that it could carry littler weight when set against the seriousness of the offending perpetrated against a number of vulnerable individuals over a period of months. The Judge found Shamrez to be dangerous. After what he identified as a great deal of reflection he reached the conclusion that with a lengthy sentence and corresponding lengthy licence it was not necessary to pass an extended sentence though he observed that, “many other judges may disagree”.[44]In relation to Said, he treated him as someone of good character who was 20 years old at the time of the earliest offence; 21 at the time of the latest, an adult but with some lack of maturity. It was noted that he had taken a decision to marry in 2021 when he knew he faced sentence, and a very recent pregnancy when he knew custody was inevitable. His victims would, therefore, include his wife, and child. The Judge made express, and detailed, references to the pre-sentence report and Said’s failure to demonstrate any understanding of the impact his behaviour had on his victims both physically and emotionally. The Judge found Said to be dangerous but stepped back from imposing an extended sentence having regard to a lack of offending whilst on bail and a positive start in custody.[45]The Judge indicated that he would give 25% credit in each case for guilty pleas in the Crown Court (there having been factual denials in the Magistrates’ Court). He had express regard to the competing submissions as to whether to pass consecutive sentences for the separate serious offences on separate occasions against a number of victims, or to pass sentence on a lead offence with the others aggravating that offence, in each case having regard to totality. The Judge concluded that the most appropriate way of structuring the sentences was to make some of the sentences consecutive but achieve totality by allowing others to remain concurrent. The Judge then passed the sentences that we have already identified.[46]The grounds of appeal against sentence in relation to Said, drafted by Mr Bajwa KC, are that the total sentence of 10 years 9 months’ imprisonment is manifestly excessive on any or all of the following grounds,(1) that in relation to various of the offences the Judge erred in finding a number of culpability A factors and thus took too high a starting point before adjustment for personal mitigation and credit for plea which impacted upon the overall sentence and assessment of totality and/or(2) the Judge made insufficient allowance in the sentences imposed on all four counts and in the total sentence for Said’s personal mitigation, in particular his age at the time of the offences and(3) that the total sentence was disproportionate to the totality of the overall offending behaviour. These grounds are all renewed before us, the limited grounds on which leave was granted being more circumscribed as already identified.[47]The grounds of appeal against sentence in relation to Shamrez, also drafted by Mr Bajwa KC, are that the total sentence of 14 years 6 months’ imprisonment is manifestly excessive on any or all of the following grounds:(1) that in relation to the various offences the Judge erred in finding a number of culpability A factors and thus took too high a starting point before adjustment for personal mitigation and credit for plea which impacted upon the overall sentence and assessment of totality and/or(2) the Judge made no allowance for any personal mitigation in the final sentence of 10 years 6 months’ imprisonment for Count 9 and/or(3) the Judge made insufficient allowance in the sentences imposed on all five counts for Shamrez’s personal mitigation, in particular (i) his remorse, (ii) his character and (iii) being a carer for his wife and seven children and age at the time of the offences and (3) that the total sentence was disproportionate to the totality of the overall offending behaviour. An extension of time was sought in which to advance grounds which it is said is the consequence of taking instruction with new solicitors and counsel and the time it took to get papers, advise and draft grounds. Discussion[48]The cases of Said and Shamrez each are concerned with serious violent offending, on separate occasions, against multiple victims amounting to what was a course of terrorising conduct spanning some 15 months from February 2019 to May 2020. We will address the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence in the case of Shamrez first in circumstances in which it undoubtably involves the most serious offending (that is in relation to Count 9) as part of the overall offending behaviour.[49]However before doing so we make an overarching point which applies in relation to each of Said and Shamrez. And that is as follows. Each stood to be sentenced in respect of multiple serious offences which could have been sentenced in different ways. The approach adopted by the Judge of passing consecutive sentences for some offences and making other sentences concurrent was entirely appropriate. Equally it would have been possible to identify the most serious offence in each case and regard the other offences as aggravating factors requiring a very substantial uplift in the sentence to be passed on a lead offence with concurrent sentences passed on the other counts. That would also have been an appropriate approach, although we can well understand why the Judge chose the former in the present case given the separate serious offending against a number of separate victims each of whom no doubt suffered not only physical but also long-term emotional consequences as a result of the offending.[50]However what was required was that a total overall sentence was passed which properly reflected the totality of the offending and was a just and proportionate to the offending as a whole. This has an important consequence that was not fully grappled with in the submissions made on behalf of Said and Shamrez which is that ultimately the question is whether or not the total sentence passed in each case was just and proportionate to the offending as a whole, although in fairness to Mr Bajwa KC he did recognise that during the course of his oral submissions. Shamrez[51]Turning first to the renewed application in respect of Shamrez. We are very grateful to Mr Bajwa KC for his written and oral submissions but we do not consider that the grounds bear examination, and we consider them to be lacking in merit. The Single Judge gave very detailed and comprehensive reasons as to why each of the points raised did not raise any arguable ground of appeal against sentence. It is perhaps surprising that Shamrez exercised his right to renew the application before the Full Court in such circumstances. Each point raised was comprehensively addressed by the Single Judge in her reasons, and we have reached the same conclusion as the Single Judge in relation to each point raised. We consider it should have been appreciated fromthe reasons given by the Single Judge why the grounds did not raise any arguable ground of appeal. We will not set out the reasons given by the Single Judge which are well known to Shamrez and those acting for him which we gratefully adopt.[52]We would, however, add further reasons of our own as to why the grounds of appeal against sentence that have been renewed are not arguable. First, and fundamentally the overriding difficulty in the grounds of appeal is that on no view can a sentence of 14 years 6 months’ imprisonment after 25% credit for guilty plea (19 years 4 months’ imprisonment at trial) be considered to be even arguably manifestly excessive for this catalogue of extreme brutality and violence against multiple vulnerable individuals on separate occasions, spanning an extended period of time and culminating in the appalling violence inflicted upon Mr Glenn that necessitated the amputation of his left leg. This was not just serious violence but violence designed to inflict terror in the victims, with Shamrez as the leader of the pack revelling in the dominance and fear he created, and showing (as reflected in the insightful pre-sentence report) a chilling lack of empathy and remorse that belied Shamrez’s belated expressions of remorse, in what was offending of very high culpability and harm. Indeed, following on from the finding of dangerousness, many judges might well have considered that an extended sentence was required to protect the public.[53]Secondly, the approach adopted in the grounds of appeal is to compartmentalise each offence, seek to make (misplaced) points on culpability in relation to each offence and fail to step back and have regard to the totality of the offending, whilst placing undue, and unrealistic, reliance on personal mitigation, and (alleged) remorse, which against the backdrop of such serious offending could only ever carry limited weight.[54]Thirdly, the fact that the overall sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive and was just and proportionate to the totality of the offending can also be illustrated by considering what would have been an appropriate sentence on Count 9 if the Judge had directed that all of the sentences imposed on Shamrez were to be served concurrently. This was, on any view, Category A1 offending with a starting point of 12 years’ custody and a range of 10 to 16 years’ custody. As the Guideline states:
“For category A1 offences the extreme nature of one or more high culpability factors or the extreme impact caused by a combination of high culpability factors may attract a sentence higher than the category range.”
That would have been entirely apposite here.[55]Contrary to the submissions made on Shamrez’s behalf, there were numerous high culpability factors: as the Judge rightly found(1) Mr Glenn was obviously vulnerable as a homeless drug user and was entirely at Shamrez’s mercy after his leg was broken and his ordeal continued;(2) it was also a prolonged and persistent attack;(3) Shamrez was the leader of the pack, a leading role, therefore, in group activity and(4) the attack was indeed borne of revenge.[56]In such circumstances, Count 9 could easily have attracted a sentence significantly above 16 years in its own right. To that would then have had to be added the aggravating factors of two other serious Attempts to Commit GBH, and two serious ABH’s requiring a very significant further uplift north of 20 years. Only limited reduction could then properly have been afforded for personal mitigation in the context of such serious offending, not least in circumstances where the Judge was entitled to consider that there was a lack of remorse on the entirety of the evidence before him. On no view was a sentence of 14 years 6 months’ imprisonment after 25% credit for guilty plea (19 years 4 months’ imprisonment at trial) in respect of the totality of the offending arguably manifestly excessive. On the contrary it was just and proportionate.[57]Fifthly, it is clear that the Judge did have express and careful regard to Shamrez’s personal mitigation including the health conditions suffered by his wife and three of his children, and the impact his imprisonment would have on them, though we note that Shamrez was effectively supporting his family by the running of the business in a way demonstrated by his offending, and he clearly gave no thought to consequences to them should his offending come to light (no doubt because he believed he was above the law and no victim would complain or dare to give evidence against him). It is also the case that Shamrez’s wife, rather than Shamrez himself, is the primary carer for the children.[58]Mr Bajwa KC rightly reminds us of the guidance in R v Petherick [2013] 1 WLR 1102. However, in the present case, what was said at [23] is particularly apposite:
“… the likelihood … of the interference with family life which is inherent in a sentence of imprisonment being disproportionate is inevitably progressively reduced as the offence is the graver…”
[59]This was a case where the need to punish and deter, coupled with the interests of multiple victims far outweighed the interference with his family life. Equally, Shamrez’s available mitigation (including the letters of reference) can carry only limited weight, when measured against the concerted course of conduct whereby he ran a family business like a gangster.[60]The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence in the case of Shamrez, and associated application for an extension of time, is refused. Said[61]It will be apparent that there is a very considerable overlap in the grounds renewed on behalf of Said, as those which we have rejected in the case of Shamrez, in particular those relating to the culpability and aggravating factors that we consider do apply and which apply equally in relation to Said, and are no more arguable in his case than in relation to Shamrez.[62]One separate ground that has caused us to pause, and to consider whether it is arguable, is in relation to Said’s age of 20-21 at the time of offending and the factor of his lack of maturity, and whether appropriate allowance was made for such matters. However the Judge made express reference to such matters, and we are satisfied that they were properly taken into account in the overall sentence passed. We accordingly refuse the renewed grounds of appeal.[63]Like the Single Judge before us, we consider the limited ground on which the Judge gave leave in relation to Count 8 is arguable. This was a complex sentencing exercise and, upon careful consideration we do consider that something did go wrong in relation to Count 8. The Judge had indicated at page 18G of his sentencing remarks that the appropriate sentence at trial, before adjustment for personal mitigation, was 5 years’ imprisonment. We agree. At paragraph 22H of his sentencing remarks the Judge concluded that the appropriate credit for guilty plea was 25%. Again we agree.[64]However, he then passed a sentence of 48 months on Count 8 (sentencing remarks at page 24B) (which is less than 25% credit for guilty plea from 5 years’ imprisonment). When asked by counsel for clarification as to how he arrived at the overall sentences on particular Counts, applying a discount of 25% for credit, the Judge indicated that the sentence he would have passed at trial on Count 8 was 66 months (i.e., 5 years 6 months’ imprisonment) with 48 months after credit being mathematically correct by reference to such a sentence at trial, but that is not consistent with the 5-year sentence at trial he had indicated was the appropriate starting point (and before any adjustment for mitigation).[65]We are led to conclude that the Judge did err in taking a starting point at trial 6 months’ higher than that which he had stated would have been taken at trial, and before adjustment for mitigation, which he stated he reduced to 48 months. The 5-year sentence at trial was also before any adjustment for mitigation. Like the Single Judge before us we note that there does not appear to be any adjustment on this count.[66]The consequence of the stating a sentence at trial 6 months’ greater than had previously been indicated, and not making any adjustment for mitigation is that the sentence passed on Count 8 was greater than it would otherwise have been. However that does not necessarily mean that the total sentence passed was manifestly excessive.[67]Nevertheless we consider that on the particular facts of this case the appeal should be allowed in relation to Count 8 for three reasons. First, we consider that the sentence on Count 8 should be true to the clear intention of the Judge as to the sentence at trial, not a subsequent error made by him whereby the sentence was then increased by 6 months for no apparent reason. Secondly, we consider that there should have been an adjustment from 5 years’ imprisonment at trial to one of 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment to reflect available mitigation in the form of age and lack of maturity (the Judge envisaging an adjustment for such mitigation), before 25% credit, to arrive at a sentence of 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment (rather than 4 year’s imprisonment).[68]Thirdly, the impact of such reduced sentence is substantial, and also illustrates a further error that was made. The Judge indicated that Said would serve two-thirds of his sentence in custody because his overall sentence exceeded 7 years. However section 244ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 only bites on individual sentences of imprisonment and for section 18 and attempt section 18 offences the sentence must meet the 4-year threshold. As the sentence stands Said would serve two-thirds of the 4-year sentence on Count 8 and then half of the 6 years 9 months sentence for Counts 2 and 5 (as each sentence falls below 4 years). The sentence on Count 8 is reduced to below 4 years (as indicated above) then Said will serve half of that sentence as well and so half of the total sentence.[69]Accordingly we quash the sentence passed on Count 8, and substitute a sentence of 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment. The total sentence is therefore reduced to a total sentence of 10 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, of which Said will serve half in custody.[70]To that limited extent, Said’s appeal against sentence is allowed.

LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH: Mr Bajwa, thank you for your submissions. It will be apparent to you that we had given anxious consideration to the possibility of making a loss of time order in the case of Shamrez but we decided not to in the light of the quality of your submissions.

[72]MR BAJWA: I am very grateful for that indication and I am sure my client will be too.