R v Mohammed & Anor - Attorney General's Reference on Unduly Lenient Sentence

| | [Home ]
[Databases ]
[World Law ]
[Multidatabase Search ]
[Help ]
[Feedback ]
[DONATE ] | |
| # England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions | | |
| You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >>

  Mohammed & Anor, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 389 (03 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2026/389.html
Cite as:
[2026] EWCA Crim 389 | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

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.
| | | Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Crim 389 |
| | | CASE NO: 202503945/A2-202503946/A2 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BIRMINGHAM
(HHJ HENDERSON) [20BE1602624 & 20BE1584724]

| | | Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL |
| | | 3 March 2026 |
B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
MR JUSTICE O'FARRELL
RECORDER OF BRISTOL
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLAIR KC)
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)

| | REX | |
| | - v - | |
| | GHAZANFOR MOHAMMED
ADIL AHMED | |
| | Reference by the Attorney General under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 | |

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________ MR J POLNAY KC appeared on behalf of the Attorney General
MR A HILL appeared on behalf of the Offender Mohammed
MR G UNWIN appeared on behalf of the Offender Ahmed

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT (APPROVED) ____________________

Crown Copyright ©

3. 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.
6. LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL:
7. His Majesty's Solicitor General seeks to refer as unduly lenient sentences imposed by His Honour Judge Henderson, in the Crown Court at Birmingham on 9 October 2025, on two offenders, Ghazafor Mohammed ("GM") and Adil Ahmed ("AA").
10. They fell to be sentenced for offences on two indictments. The first, which we will call the "kidnap indictment", was a six count indictment for offending occurring on the night of 6 June 2024, when AA had just turned 19 and GM was also 19, some 3 months older. Both were convicted of all six counts, together with four co-defendants following a 7-week trial before HHJ Henderson. The offences and sentences on that indictment were the same for both of them and were as follows:
13. | Counts 1 to 3: | Wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861: 5 years' detention in a young offender institution | | Count 4: | Having an offensive weapon: 9 month's detention in a young offender institution. | | Count 5: | Kidnapping: 9 years' detention in a young offender institution | | Count 6: | Aggravated Burglary: 5 years' detention in a young offender institution |
16. Those sentences were all to run concurrently with each other.
19. The second indictment, which we shall call the "drugs indictment", charged two offences of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, one being crack cocaine and the other being heroin. Their trial for those offences, together with other co-defendants, took place before His Honour Judge Ash KC. GM pleaded guilty on the fourth day of the trial, after the prosecution opening but before evidence had begun. AA pleaded guilty on the sixth day, after the prosecution evidence had started. For those offences GM received sentences on each count of 3 years' detention in a young offender institution and AA received sentences of 2 years' detention in a young offender institution. Those sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentences on the kidnap indictment.
22. GM's total sentence was therefore one of 12 year's detention in a young offender institution. AA's total sentence was one of 11 years' detention in a young offender institution. Although correctly announced as sentences of detention in a young offender institution, AA's sentence appears to have been incorrectly recorded as one of "imprisonment" and the record should be corrected accordingly.
25. The facts
26. The kidnap indictment
27. In the early hours of 6 June 2024 the six defendants on the kidnap indictment, including GM and AA, were driving around the Alum Rock area in Birmingham in three separate cars. They were looking for a particular target whom they had selected in advance and whom they had reason to believe would be in the area. He was called Mohammed Malik. Before finding this intended victim, the defendants had twice targeted the 'wrong' car by driving after it at speed, stopping only when it became apparent that the driver was not the person they were looking for.
30. Shortly before half-past midnight, they found their victim driving a red Mercedes travelling along Rogers Road. His two passengers were Abdul Hussain and Hafeez Ali. The red Mercedes was ambushed and blocked in by the defendants' three vehicles. Once the Mercedes was surrounded, the defendants got out of their vehicles, armed with machetes. They smashed the glass of the Mercedes and attacked the occupants with their weapons.
33. They told Mohammed Malik to get in the boot. When Mr Malik resisted, he was put to the floor by GM and kicked by AA whilst being held down. Eventually he was forced into the boot of one of the cars. The other two victims were then able to escape.
36. The vehicle with Mr Malik in the boot was driven off by GM in convoy with another of the defendants' vehicles, and in convoy with the red Mercedes, which was now being driven by AA. The red Mercedes was abandoned and a third vehicle picked up AA, which proceeded with the other two vehicles to Mr Malik's address. At some stage before arriving there Mr Malik was taken from the boot of the car in which he was being carried into the rear of the vehicle. Armed with weapons, the offenders forced entry through the front door at the address where Mr Malik's flat was. They could not find what they were looking for and at one point Mr Malik was escorted into his room to help them to look for it. When they could not find it they left, taking Mr Malik with them in one of the cars.
39. Mr. Malik was later released at a public house at 1:26 am, just over an hour after he was kidnapped.
42. In the initial machete attack he had received a 6 cm wound to the back of his left hand. He suffered fractures to the bones of three fingers of his left hand and the tendons in each of those fingers were severed. He also had a 15 cm laceration to his scalp. Hafeez Ali suffered a deep wound to his left wrist, a wound to one of the muscles in his left wrist and a loss of flexion in three fingers of his right hand, again as a result of a cut to a tendon. He had suffered severe blood loss leading to unconsciousness. Abdul Ali received a laceration to his right eye, and scratches to his elbow and his leg.
45. The victims declined to provide witness statements. It is not known whether there were any lasting effects from their injuries. The exact motive for the attack and kidnapping therefore remains unknown, but when sentencing, the judge said that he was sure that it had a significant criminal background, whether about warning off the competition or stealing the proceeds of drug dealing. He regarded the offending as linked to that on the drugs indictment.
48. The drugs indictment
49. The conspiracies to supply crack cocaine and heroin occurred in the operation and use of a drugs line known as the "TJ" line. This was a 24 hour 7 days a week drugs line which was in operation on all but three days of the 7 month indictment period between November 2023 and June 2024. During that period the TJ line recorded over 46,000 call data events, including the sending of 476 'bulk' SMS messages, which resulted in the supply of a total of at least 8 kilograms of crack cocaine and heroin.
52. GM and AA were two of the eight conspirators who were charged on the drugs indictment. Their roles were as follows:
54. (1) GM held what was described by the judge as a "directing" role. His own telephone co-located with the TJ line on over half of the days during the conspiracy period. Recorded messages showed him discussing shift patterns, takings, payments made to drivers and the overall profitability of the drugs line as well as a report on daily activities with someone who was above him in the hierarchy. He received a report from someone with a rundown on the day's sales and monies spent.
55. >
56. (2) AA was a trusted controller of the line for periods over the course of the indictment period, although there were also a number of others who performed this function at other times during that period. The phone analysis suggested a concentration of his involvement in December, January and February, with less involvement thereafter, although he was clearly still involved in the conspiracy at the end of the indictment period, when messages show that he clearly knew of cash related to drugs at an address when GM was arrested. One message was recovered in which he directed a co-defendant to a customer who wanted drugs. In the course of mitigation it was conceded on his behalf that he had played a significant rather than lesser role.
58. Sentencing
59. GM has a single previous conviction for possession of a bladed article in a public place (a machete) to which he pleaded guilty on 16 March 2022. He was 16 when that offence occurred. He was sentenced to a referral order. AA has no previous convictions.
61. A number of character references for GM were placed before the sentencing judge. They do not appear to have been uploaded to the Digital Case System and we have not seen them, but their nature is apparent from what defence counsel said about them in mitigation: he referred to them as being from people who had known GM as a neighbour and/or former employer and/or friend for 10 to 15 years and who variously described him as polite and courteous and neighbourly. He had had a good education and had a future as an electrical engineer.
64. For AA there was a letter addressed to the judge from him which suggested genuine albeit belated remorse. Four positive character references about him were also placed before the judge. There was a report from a chartered forensic psychologist commissioned by the defence. The defence highlighted the following aspects, in particular, from that report: he had early experience of parental separation and financial hardship which coincided with his involvement in a negative peer group and persistent bullying across multiple schools, despite attempts to seek help; his intellectual function fell in the low average range which the author identified might limit his capacity for abstract reasoning, planning and problem solving, particularly in emotionally charged or high-stress situations; the report also suggested elevated levels of compliance; he was assessed as presenting symptoms of severe anxiety and depression, with notable deterioration in mental health and reported suicidal ideation, which raised concerns about his capacity to cope with a prolonged custodial sentence. The author said:
67. > "His offending appears to have occurred in the context of heightened emotional vulnerability, substance misuse and peer influence, rather than as part of a persistent antisocial trajectory."
69. The judge approached the sentencing exercise as follows. He took first the offences on the kidnap indictment and said that he would treat the kidnapping as the lead offence and reflect in the sentence for that offence the appropriate sentences for the linked offending on the other counts. He said that in relation to the offending on all of those counts that the defendants had signed up to the plan and were jointly responsible for all those offences. There was, the judge said, no difference in their culpability. So far as harm was concerned, the judge described this as a brutal event in which the victims were hacked at with a machete causing significant damage to tendons. It is apparent from the sentencing remarks that this aspect caused the judge to find that the offence of kidnapping fell into Category 1 of the Sentencing Council Guideline for Kidnap and False Imprisonment where the category factor is "very serious injury caused to the victim".
72. So far as culpability was concerned, the judge found that there was the use of a highly dangerous weapon (a machete) to inflict violence, which is one of the culpability A factors. However, he said there were a number of elements of culpability B factors which were present: although there was some sophistication in the planning of the kidnap, it was a long way, he said, from being the most sophisticated operation. In addition, it did not last for a very long time by the standards of many kidnaps. He said "it rather looks as though the kidnappers quickly lost interest, for whatever reason, when the aggravated burglary that was another facet of the episode turned out to be fruitless."
75. The judge therefore concluded:
78. > "So, although this case in terms of the kidnapping does not have all the factors which can contribute to a category 1 offence, I have no doubt that it is to be regarded as a category 1A offence because of the use of the machete, but the absence of some features puts it lower in the bracket."
80. Under the Sentencing Council Guideline a category 1A offence has a starting point of 11 years' custody and a category range of 8-16 years.
83. The aggravating features identified by the judge were the commission of other offences at the time as the kidnapping. He had already taken into account the wounding offences in categorising the kidnap as Category 1 harm. The mitigating factors identified by the judge were:
85. (1) Good character (as the judge found it to be), AA having no previous convictions, and GM only the bladed article offence when he was 16.
86. (2) The young age of GM and AA. They were, as we have said, 19 at the time of the offences, AA just 19 and GM some 3 months older. They were 20 at the date of sentencing.
87. (3) Delay: The judge said:
89. > "...there has been significant delay between offending and sentence largely caused by defendants not facing up to their guilt until late, if at all, but it remains a significant factor for young defendants."
90. The judge therefore concluded that the sentence on count 5, the kidnapping charge, should be one of 9 years' custody for each of GM and AA, and for all the other offenders save one to whom specific personal mitigation applied. Shorter concurrent sentences for the other offending were imposed, as we have indicated.
93. In relation to the drugs offending the judge was sentencing a number of other conspirators as well as GM and AA. He noted that the Drugs Guideline did not apply directly to conspiracies, but said that in the circumstances of the case he would use the guideline as a starting point, "but very much a starting point". The conspiracy lasted for 7 months and involved the trafficking of at least 8 kilograms of Class A drugs. Accordingly, he said, the overall shape of the drugs indictment would put it well into category 1 in the Guideline (which has an indicative quantity of 5 kilograms for category 1).
96. So far as the role played by individual offenders is concerned, the judge said:
98. >
99. > "Like a lot of cases where the guidelines are invoked, none of the cases and defendants fall clearly into one distinct category. They are very often near the edges of categories and have contradictory factors which might otherwise move a starting point up and down. I need to bear in mind above all totality and the reality of people's involvement in criminal activity rather than a particular label which may be glib and not completely realistic. In my judgment, it is a significant factor that, at this sentencing hearing, the prosecution have decided not even to apply to begin Proceeds of Crime Act investigations. That is plainly a well-considered decision. The factor feeding into that is the fact that no significant amounts of cash or evidence of high living were discovered."
100. He said that he had to consider totality and the youth of the defendants as a "very significant factor". He then said:
102. > "Before I consider the question of the actual sentence in respect of ... the drugs indictment, I shall set out my starting point for these offences in the abstract on their own."
104. He identified that abstract starting point for GM, whom he described as "at the top of the tree" amongst the defendants before him as 9 years. For AA (and some of the other defendants) he identified that his starting point would have been 7 years. He then indicated that he would impose consecutive sentences for the drugs offences, that is consecutive to the kidnap offence sentences, but that he had significantly reduced them to reflect totality. He then announced the consecutive sentence for GM of 3 years for the drugs offences and the consecutive sentence of 2 years for AA for the drugs offences.
106. Submissions
107. On behalf of the Solicitor General, Mr Polnay KC criticises the sentencing judge for the brevity of his sentencing remarks and some aspects of matters which he failed to deal with. As to matters of substance, he makes essentially two points. The first is that the kidnap offence sentence on count 5 of 9 years' custody should have been uplifted to reflect the offending on the other five counts. He accepted that the judge was entitled to make a modest downward adjustment from the starting point of 11 years' on the basis that only one of the culpability A factors was present, and that, arguably, there were some elements of culpability B. He accepted that the young ages of GM and AA respectively at the time of the offending were significant mitigating factors, as was AA's previous good character, although he submitted that the judge was incorrect to treat GM as a man of previous good character given his conviction for possession of a machete, which was a matter he submitted which was relevant to the offending in the kidnap offences. The thrust of his first submission was that the judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the serious aggravating factors, in particular, the three associated serious offences of section 18 wounding and the aggravated burglary.
110. Nevertheless, he submitted, that taken on their own, these would mean that the sentence for those offences was lenient, but not necessarily unduly lenient in accordance with the principles that apply on an Attorney-General's Reference. He said that had that been the only matter for complaint, it would not have been an appropriate case for a Reference in relation to that sentence or those sentences standing alone.
113. His second submission, which was really at the heart of his argument, was that the reduction for totality on the drug offences, in GM's case from 9 years to 3 years and in AA's case from 7 years to 2 years, was simply much too large a reduction; and whilst the judge's starting point in the abstract for those offences of 9 years and 7 years respectively would not of itself properly be characterised as unduly lenient, (although lenient), it was the extent of that very large reduction for totality from two sentences which were already at the lenient end of?the spectrum which caused the overall sentence to be unduly lenient.
116. On behalf of AA, Mr?Unwin, in his written submissions, has reminded us of?the authorities on what is meant by "unduly lenient" and the function of Attorney-General's References, which Mr?Polnay had also properly included in the Reference. Mr?Unwin submitted that the judge properly took into account all the aspects of the incident on 6?June in arriving at the sentence on that indictment of 9 years, an assessment he was well placed to make having been the trial judge. The sentence for those offences was not in any way lenient, let alone unduly so. When arriving at the "starting point" for the relative roles in the drugs conspiracy, the judge was reflecting AA's role but this fell to be reduced not just for totality but for his young age and other personal mitigation. Mr?Unwin placed emphasis on his young age (only 18 for most of?the indictment period and indeed for that part of it in which the majority at least of his offending occurred) and emphasised the other personal mitigation to which we have referred. He emphasised that a sentence of 11 years for this young first-time offender was a very lengthy one and that the addition of only 2 more years for the drug offences led to a sentence which was appropriate as a matter of totality. Alternatively, he submitted that if the overall sentence was lenient it was not unduly so and there was no gross error.
119. On behalf of GM, Mr?Hill made briefer submissions in writing but which were along the same lines in respect of those of the points which applied to GM.
122. Discussion and conclusions
123. We do not consider that the full width of Mr Polnay's criticism of the brevity of the sentencing remarks is warranted, although the judge ought to have identified what, if any, credit he was applying for the extremely late pleas to the drugs offences. Brevity is a virtue and the remarks are sufficiently full to set out the reasoning leading to the sentences which the judge imposed. It might have been more helpful had the judge identified more explicitly the category roles which he applied for the drugs offences, but he was right to treat the role categorisation factors as something which are not to be applied too rigidly.
126. As to the substance, we agree with the defence submissions that the kidnap indictment sentences are properly characterised as appropriate sentences rather than sentences which are themselves at the very lenient end of?the spectrum. The starting point of 11 years for the kidnapping already took account of the serious injury caused in the section 18 offences by putting the offence in category 1 harm. The judge was entitled to treat the kidnapping alone as falling lower down in the range for a category 1A offence. Category 1A is for the highest level of culpability. The category 1A range starts at 8 years. There was a need for a real reduction for the young age of?the offenders and for the fact that this was first offending for AA. As to GM, it is true that the possession of a machete offence which he had committed when he was 16 was relevant but nevertheless, the judge was entitled to treat the absence of any other offending for him as a factor which reduced his culpability. The aggravated burglary was really part and parcel of the series of events involving kidnap and involved only a very limited increase in the overall criminality. It was not suggested that anyone else was involved at the property, and the judge found that it had been called off quite quickly. The judge had heard the trial and was well placed to decide where in the range it should fall and what sentence would properly reflect all offending in relation to the entire incident. It was pointed out on behalf of?the defence that similar 9 year sentences were imposed on co-defendants, in particular one co-defendant whom the judge treated as equally responsible in the joint enterprise, and that the Solicitor General had not sought a Reference in respect of that sentence.
129. In relation to the second and main submission, we think it is relatively clear that the judge's "starting points" of 9 years and 7 years respectively already took account of all personal mitigation including age and good character and that the reduction from there to 3 years and 2 years respectively was solely for totality. That is what the judge said, and it is apparent from the roles which AA and GM were found to have played. In AA's case, it was conceded that he played a significant role, for which category 1 has a starting point of 10 years and range of 9 to 12 years, for an indicative quantity of 5 kilograms rather 8 kilograms involved in this case and for an offence of supply rather than a conspiracy. Seven years is the starting point for a lesser role, which on any view would not represent the culpability of AA's involvement in the offending unless the mitigating factors were taken into account in reaching that figure. The same applies to GM. His role was an important one and, if not a leading role, was close to it. The cusp between leading and significant role for category 1 offending for an?offence of supply is 12 years.
132. The reduction for totality in GM's case, of 6 years in GM's case and in AA's case of 5 years was very substantial, and applying it solely to the drugs sentences, rather than applying some of it to the kidnap sentences, leaves the impression that the drugs sentences were indeed unduly lenient for that offending. However what matters is whether the total sentences of 11 and 12 years were unduly lenient for the totality of the offending.
135. We keep firmly in mind the guidance to be found in the leading authorities as to the meaning of that expression, and the proper approach to References under section 36 of the Criminal Justice?Act 1988, including Attorney-General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41 in the off cited passage of Lord?Lane?CJ at page 46A-C; Attorney-General's Reference 132 of 2001 (Bryn Johnson) [2002] EWCA 1418; [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 41 at [24]; Attorney-General's Reference No 8 of 2007 *...** Daniel Krivec) [2007] EWCA Crim 922; [2008] 1 Cr App R(S) 1, per Lord?Phillips CJ at [16]; *Attorney-General's Reference No 6 of 2012 [2012] EWCA Crim 2746, per Hughes LJ at [19]; Attorney-General's Reference (Howard) [2016] EWCA Crim 1511; [2017] 1 Cr App R(S) 8 per Sharp LJ at [27]. The sentiment in those authorities that leniency, where the facts justify it, is to be commended not condemned, is one reflected in the requirement in section 231(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 that a custodial sentence must be the shortest sentence commensurate with the seriousness of?the offending.
138. Eleven or twelve years is a very lengthy period for young offenders like these facing custody for the first time, and being in AA's case of previous good character and in MG's case largely so. Very serious as this linked offending was, in our view, the overall sentence passed on each of them whilst lenient, was not unduly lenient.
141. Accordingly, we grant leave but we decline to interfere with the sentences.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2026/389.html