R v Arjol Selamaj & Anor

These are joint appeals against sentence brought with limited leave of the single judge. The appellants are father and son. We shall refer to them by their first names Adrian (father) and Arjol (son). Each seeks to renew their application for leave in respect of the ground which was refused by the single judge.

On 12 September 2025 having pleaded guilty before the Leamington Spa Magistrates' Court the appellants were committed for sentence pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in respect of these offences:

On 13 October 2025 at Warwick Crown Court the appellants were sentenced. Arjol received a total of 22 months, being 20 months for the affray with a consecutive two months for the cultivation of cannabis offence. Adrian was sentenced to a total of 20 months, being 20 months for the affray with a concurrent sentence of 10 months for the bladed article offence.

On 21 January 2024 police were called to a disturbance between several males on Abbey Street in Rugby. The incident was captured on CCTV. We have watched that footage carefully.

The footage shows Arjol pulling up in his car at the top of the street and then walking swiftly over to a group of men gathered outside the house next to 157 Abbey Street. Arjol can be seen starting to shout at a male in the group (the victim). Arjol approached the victim, who turned to a van behind him and picked up a metal pole. The victim hid this behind his back before walking towards Arjol. Arjol punched the victim repeatedly to the face. Numerous males at the scene became involved, trying to stop the assault. The footage then shows Adrian coming out of number 157 with a meat cleaver in his hand. He can be seen brandishing the meat cleaver, holding it over the top of his head and attempting to bring it down. Later in the brawl Arjol is seen in the group with a brick in his hand making similar gestures with the brick. He can also be seen using a long pole to hit out. As a result of this incident the victim suffered a deep laceration to his forehead and a 10cm long laceration to the top of his head. We have seen photographs of these injuries.

The appellants retreated towards number 157 after the first part of the incident. They both returned again and the brawl continued with Arjol aiming several punches at the victim further down the road.

Police officers arrived at the scene. Witnesses stated that Arjol went into a neighbouring address so an officer, PC Baker, approached that address and spoke to a male through a CCTV camera that had a microphone and speaker. The male said he would return to the property in two minutes but would not say where he was. During this conversation Adrian approached PC Baker and informed him that it was his house. He said he spoke no English and began shouting and gesturing towards the male with the head injury. He had to be stopped by PC Baker and other officers. The male on the CCTV camera stopped responding and as PC Baker believed the suspect was inside he forced entry to the property. Inside officers could see small droplets of blood on the living room floor but the address was empty. A short while later Arjol drew up in a black Mercedes. He asked: "What have you done to my door?" He had a wound in the centre of his forehead that was bleeding. He was arrested. Adrian tried to force his way past officers towards the injured male and was also arrested. An officer discovered a 'grow' of around 20 cannabis plants inside Arjol's address and he was further arrested for that.

The appellants were aged 35 (Arjol) and 61 (Adrian) at the date of sentence. Both had put in bases of plea which the prosecution accepted to the effect that, at the start of the incident when the first punches were thrown, they were acting in self-defence. The judge pointed out that after this the violence had escalated, Adrian going inside number 157, coming out with a meat cleaver; Arjol arming himself with a brick and striking out with that before later acquiring a pole and using that as a weapon. The judge categorised the affray as a Category 1A offence under the relevant Sentencing Council guideline, where there is a starting point of two years and a range of one-and-a-half years to two years nine months, pointing to the fact that each appellant had armed themselves with weapons showing an intention to cause fear of very serious violence as indicated by the way they used those weapons during the incident. As to harm, the judge pointed to the injuries caused to the victim and the serious fear of distress caused. Citing the risk of serious disorder occasioned by Adrian's use of the cleaver, the judge placed the bladed article offence into Category 1A of the bladed article guideline where the starting point is one-and-a-half years with a bracket of one year to two-and-a-half years. The cannabis offence she categorised as category C lesser role with a starting point of a high community order and a range of up to 26 weeks.

Starting with Adrian, the judge said that she would aggravate the affray to reflect the bladed article. Taking account of his previous good character, "other pertinent matters" and balancing that against aggravating factors which she gave as the bladed article offence, the location and "broad daylight situation", she concluded that the appropriate sentence after trial would have been 30 months (which she discounted by one-third for plea to 20 months), passing a concurrent sentence for the bladed article offence.

Turning to Arjol, the judge said that although he had not wielded as serious a weapon as his father, his had been the primary role in the affray: "You were plainly a leader in what went on." She said that taking all matters of mitigation into account, "even ... your good character" the appropriate sentence after trial would also have been 30 months reduced to 20 for plea. The cannabis offence was aggravated by a previous drugs conviction and the fact that there were children in the house. The sentence after trial for the cannabis offence would be three months reduced to two for plea. She ordered this sentence to run consecutively, resulting in the total of 22 months.

The judge then considered whether she could order the sentences to be suspended, concluding that given the extent of the violence in a public street, appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody.

Mr Gerrity, newly instructed to act for both appellants on this appeal, raises the following grounds of challenge. The first ground, for which he has leave, is that the sentence for the affray in each case was too long. He takes no issue with the judge's categorisation of the affray as 1A in the guideline but submits that the judge placed too much weight on matters which she identified as aggravating the offence involving an element of double-counting; alternatively he says that she gave insufficient weight to the considerable mitigation available to both appellants.

The second ground, for which Mr Gerrity renews the applications for leave, is that the judge erred in declining to suspend the sentences which she passed.

Allowing, as the judge did, for the fact that both father and son were acting in self-defence/defence of another at the start of this incident it cannot be said that this was a long or sustained incident. It was nevertheless serious, where weapons were used and there was, as the judge found, an intention to cause fear of really serious violence. Those are two factors establishing category A culpability in the guideline. The meat cleaver which Adrian took and brandished at the scene was an obviously dangerous weapon meriting an uplift to the category 1A starting point. Whilst use of a weapon is a factor in category 1 culpability, the especially dangerous nature of the cleaver which Adrian obtained and used was properly to be treated as an aggravating factor. It follows that we disagree with Mr Gerrity's submission that treating the cleaver as such was fully double counting. The real issue is whether the judge adequately allowed for the mitigation, namely the absence of any previous convictions and the fact that Adrian was fully employed.

Here the judge must have treated the factors she identified as aggravating the starting point up to or even beyond the top of the range given in the guideline. We think she was right to regard the especially dangerous nature of the weapon, the injuries to the victim and the fact that the violence took place in daytime on a street where there were passers-by as matters which aggravated the offence. But against this was the weighty mitigation of Adrian's previous good character, he had no previous convictions at all aged 61, together with the fact that he was fully employed.

In our view these factors balanced each other such that the appropriate sentence after trial would have been at the category 1A starting point of 24 months. With a one-third discount for plea this reduces the sentence to one of 16 months for the affray.

We agree with the judge that although Arjol did not arm himself with as potentially dangerous a weapon as the cleaver, nonetheless he armed himself with a brick and later a pole and his attack on the victim was the more persistent and violent. We see no reason to depart from her conclusion that Arjol should receive the same sentence for the affray as his father. In his case also the sentence of 20 months will be quashed and replaced with one of 16 months. The cannabis sentence was entirely appropriate, as was the judge's decision to order that it should run consecutively. In Arjol's case therefore the appeal is allowed to the extent of reducing the total sentence to one of 18 months.

We refuse leave for the remaining ground of appeal. Although we have reduced the sentences, which would entitle us to consider afresh the matter of suspension, we concur with the judge that appropriate punishment for this type of serious street violence, using weapons, can only be achieved by immediate custody.

In conclusion, the sentences for the offence of affray will in each case be quashed and replaced with one of 16 months. All other sentences and orders remain the same. The total sentence for Adrian is therefore one of 16 months. The total sentence for Arjol is 18 months. To that extent these appeals are allowed.