Fathi & Ors, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1434 (11 October 2024)

Fathi & Ors, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1434 (11 October 2024)

The Court held that the sentencing judge's evaluative judgment in applying the Sentencing Council guideline, balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, and declining to impose extended sentences was within the proper ambit of judicial discretion. The grounds advanced by the Solicitor General were either procedurally inadmissible or substantively without merit. The sentences were not unduly lenient.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 1434
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Offender: Mohammed Fathi; Offender: Bailey Ruscoe; Offender: Peter Clegg; Offender: Kai Hurst
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Appeal Against Sentence (unduly Lenient Sentence Reference)
Outcome
Application for leave to refer sentences as unduly lenient refused; sentences undisturbed except for correction of Clegg's sentence to detention in a young offender institution.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Aggravated Burglary, Attorney General's Reference, Youth Offenders, Dangerousness, Mitigation, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Sentencing Aggravated Burglary Attorney General's Reference Youth Offenders Dangerousness Mitigation Sentencing Guidelines

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Mohammed Fathi

Offender

Bailey Ruscoe

Offender

Peter Clegg

Offender

Kai Hurst

Offender

Procedural Posture

Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Appeal Against Sentence (unduly Lenient Sentence Reference)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary were unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorisation under the Sentencing Council guideline
  3. 3 Whether sufficient weight was given to aggravating and mitigating factors

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the sentencing judge's evaluative judgment in applying the Sentencing Council guideline, balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, and declining to impose extended sentences was within the proper ambit of judicial discretion. The grounds advanced by the Solicitor General were either procedurally inadmissible or substantively without merit. The sentences were not unduly lenient.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to refer sentences as unduly lenient refused; sentences undisturbed except for correction of Clegg's sentence to detention in a young offender institution.

Orders

  • Application for leave to refer sentences refused
  • Clegg's sentence corrected to detention in a young offender institution; periods of custody unchanged