R v Salim Nazek

MRS JUSTICE CUTTS: On 5 September 2025 following his pleas of guilty before Westminster Magistrates' Court to one offence of burglary and one of attempted burglary, both of non-dwellings, the appellant was committed for sentence to the Crown Court pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020. On 13 October in the Crown Court at Southwark he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on each offence concurrent. He appeals those sentences with the leave of the single judge.

The facts can be briefly stated. Both offences occurred in the early hours of 4 September 2025. The first in time was the attempted burglary at a firm of architects at Upper Montague Street. The offence was captured on CCTV. The appellant could be seen to pull up the lower part of the pull-down shutter at the front of the building and crawl underneath it. He then forcefully kicked the glass pane of the door twice with the sole of his foot. This caused the glass to fracture into a cobweb shape but the glass did not leave the frame. The appellant then crawled back out underneath the shutter and ran off. Nothing was stolen from the architects.

A short time later at 4.20 am a member of the public called the police to say that they had heard glass shattering. This was at the Sir John Balcombe public house in Balcombe Street. CCTV captured the appellant peering through the glass into the public house. He ran away as a motorist past but returned a short time later with a wooden ladder which he used to smash the glass pane of the door. Therein he stole two card readers which were found in his possession when he was arrested, and two cash tills, which were not recovered. The appellant returned a short time later and stole some bottles of alcohol from the pub. These were also found on his arrest.

The police arrived to see the appellant make off. He was found hiding between two cars in a nearby street. He was arrested and made no comment in interview.

The appellant is 24 years of age. At the time of these offences he was on licence from a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment imposed upon him on 23 May 2025 by the Crown Court at Harrow for four non-domestic burglaries. These he had entered in a similar way to his method of entry for the offences subject to this appeal. Some of them had been committed whilst on bail.

In his sentencing remarks the judge observed that the offences had been committed after the appellant had been recently released from identical offending whilst on licence. He placed both offences in Category 2B of the relevant guideline. They fell within Category B culpability because there was a degree of planning or organisation and the appellant was equipped for burglary by possession of the ladder. The judge found moderate loss to the victims of the burglary and therefore Category 2 harm. This afforded a starting point of six months' custody for a single offence with a range of a medium level community order to 12 months' custody.

The judge said that he was dealing with two offences. That, together with the fact that the appellant was on licence and the similar nature of the previous convictions, placed the total sentence "well outside the range for a single offence in that category". The judge came to a total notional sentence after trial of 18 months' imprisonment which he reduced by one-third to reflect the appellant's early guilty pleas.

Miss Bentwood, who represents the appellant today as she did at the court below, submits that this sentence was manifestly excessive for the following reasons. First, she contends that the judge erred in his categorisation of harm within the guideline. There was, she asserted in her written grounds, no evidence of moderate economic loss and pointed out that the theft of two cash tills without any cash within them, two card readers and bottles of alcohol, most of which had been recovered, could not amount to moderate loss. In her written grounds she submitted that their cumulative value could not be said to be more than of low value and the offences therefore fell properly within Category 3 harm.

In oral argument, Miss Bentwood put the matter slightly differently in that she accepts that on balance the offences fell within Category 2 harm, but submits that the judge should have sentenced towards the lower end of the 2B category range, particularly as there was no victim present at either offence.

Second, Miss Bentwood submits that even if the judge was correct in his categorisation of the offences, he reached a notional sentence after trial which was too high. She accepts that an uplift from the starting point was necessary to reflect the fact that there were two offences and the aggravating factors of the previous convictions and the appellant being on licence. However, she submits an increase of 12 months from the starting point was too much, making the sentence imposed manifestly excessive.

We have reflected upon these submissions. We recognise and accept that no victim was present at either burglary but we are unpersuaded that these offences fell within the lower end of Category 2B. Card readers, cash tills and alcohol were taken. Whether or not there was cash in the tills, they were vital for the operation of the business. In any event there was moderate damage caused in the smashing of the windows to gain entry to both premises.

We accept that the judge adopted a total notional sentence after trial significantly higher than the six month starting point for a single Category 2B burglary. We are however unpersuaded that this was manifestly excessive. An uplift was required from the starting point to reflect that the judge was sentencing for two offences, not one. There were then the significant aggravating factors and the recent previous convictions which were identical to the offences subject to this appeal and the fact that the appellant had only just been released from that sentence and was on licence. There was no mitigation.

In those circumstances, we consider that the judge was entitled to reach the notional sentence that he did. He afforded full credit for the appellant's guilty pleas and came to a sentence which we consider was just and proportionate for the offending as a whole. It follows that this appeal is dismissed.