R v Ibrahim Jhangha & Anor

On 22 May 2025, in the Crown Court at Reading, the applicant Maky Jobe and the applicant Ibrahim Jhangha pleaded guilty to wounding with intent and having an article with a blade or point. On 10 October 2025, both applicants were sentenced by His Honour Judge Amjad Nawaz to six years and four months' detention in a young offender institution.

The applicants each renew their applications for leave to appeal against sentence.

The index offences related to incidents of gang violence that had taken place in Watford over three consecutive days in July 2024 between the "AR gang" and the "Bushey gang". The applicants Jhangha and Jobe had travelled to Hertfordshire to associate with the "AR gang". On 23 July 2024, a man named Narada Wilson had been stabbed in a chicken shop. Neither applicant had been involved in that incident. However, in the early hours of the following day the applicants were in company with a number of others in Mandela Place, near an address where a man named Lamont Gordon was staying with his father, Henriques Donaldson.

Henriques Donaldson left the address briefly and was accosted by the applicants and others all of whom were carrying machetes. The group demanded to know where Lamont Gordon was. Henriques Donaldson subsequently rang the intercom and the group including the applicants entered the property. Lamont Gordon fled to the living room and three of the group, including the applicants Jhangha and Jobe, repeatedly stabbed Lamont Gordon whilst one of the males ensured that Lamont Gordon's father remained in the kitchen by holding him at knife point.

The group then fled the address. Police officers and paramedics subsequently attended the address and a police officer described Lamont Gordon's "hand hanging off from his arm".

Gordon was taken to Watford General Hospital, and then to St Mary's Hospital in Paddington due to the severity of his injuries. Gordon had an abnormal collection of air and blood around his left lung, a wound to the left side of his upper abdomen, two slash wounds to the side of his upper left arm, a slash wound to the inside of his right elbow, a wound to the middle of his back, an open fracture to his left forearm with damage to the muscles and associated tendons of the left hand and wrist, and his left forearm had been dislocated. A chest drain was inserted into his chest and, in surgery, an injury to his spleen was identified. Gordon's spleen was removed and an operation was performed on his left arm and hand. On 31 July 2024, Gordon's condition worsened due to a partial collapse of his left lung. Gordon continued to have treatment before eventually being discharged from hospital on 7 August 2024.

The mobile phone of the applicant Jhangha had been seized when he was arrested and a number of pertinent videos were recovered from the handset showing the two applicants holding machetes, one of which was identified from doorbell footage as having been involved in the incident.

In interview the applicant Jhangha made no comment to questions asked by the police. The applicant Jobe gave a prepared statement in which he denied the offending.

In a pre-sentence report in the case of Jhangha, the author noted his adverse experiences which had featured throughout his life. He had actively engaged in further education whilst in custody and had shown that he has positive goals and ambitions. He had pleaded guilty and accepted his responsibility for his involvement in the offence. It was said that his personal history demonstrates considerable vulnerability.

There was also a psychological report in which it was said that Jhangha presented with significant vulnerabilities shaped by his adverse childhood experiences, socio-economic hardship, and psychological challenges. His history reflected a pattern of neglect, trauma, and systemic disadvantage, which have likely contributed to his emotional difficulties, maladaptive coping mechanisms, and susceptibility to coercion and exploitation.

In sentencing Jhangha, the judge noted that he was aged 16 at the time of the offence and 17 at the time of sentencing. The guidelines on sentencing children and young persons applied. He noted his difficult upbringing, the lack of familial presence or support, disrupted experiences in accommodation and education, and trauma because his father had passed away. He took into account the psychological report which indicated that Jhangha was a highly vulnerable young man whose difficulties stemmed from a combination of early childhood responsibilities and exposure to trauma and exploitation. It was noted that since being detained in custody he had tried to improve himself. He was of previous good character and he had expressed remorse.

The author of the pre-sentence report prepared on Jobe noted that when he returned to the United Kingdom from Senegal, he reporting having experienced physical chastisement. It was said that he "could not fully express his feelings (about) the trauma he suffered, which was not addressed at the time. His stature and communication difficulties also made him a victim of bullying that led to him resorting to the unwise decision of carrying a weapon to protect himself".

In sentencing Jobe, the judge noted that he too was aged 16 at the time of the offence and 17 at sentence. He had no previous findings of guilt against him. He displayed a degree of immaturity. He was a looked after child and had experienced significant childhood trauma. When he was much younger, he had been sent back to Senegal, where his only education was religious education. His educational development was stunted and he was left alone, effectively to fend for himself. Referral under modern slavery provisions established that he had been exploited.

On behalf of Jobe, Mr McGrath KC made the following submissions: first, that the judge mis-directed himself that the starting point for determining the sentence for a child or young person is to begin with the adult guideline; second, that the judge erred in his conclusion that as this was a joint offence each participant was equally responsible; third, that the judge failed to give any, or sufficient weight to the material before the court that supported the conclusion that the applicant's level of educational development and maturity were lower than his chronological age; fourth, that the judge failed to give any, or sufficient weight to the material before the court that demonstrated significant adverse experiences that made the applicant vulnerable to exploitation; and fifth, that the judge failed to conclude that, in the circumstances of his case, it was unreasonable for him to enter a plea of guilty at an earlier date.

On behalf of Jhangha, Mr Stevens adopted Mr McGrath's submissions. He acknowledged that there can be no criticism of the starting point of 12 years adopted by the court, but said that the judge "did not adequately examine the unique circumstances relating to this still young defendant".

Mr Stevens argued that the judge below did not explain why he was making a reduction of one third, rather than one half, of the sentence that would be appropriate for an adult. He submitted that the judge did not pay proper attention to the lengthy list of features listed in the guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People which related to him. It was said that he had made huge progress in the 13 months or so he spent on remand.

The court was reminded that Jhangha had been arrested a month before this offending for drug offences and was referred to the National Referral Mechanism who found positive grounds for concluding that he had been a victim of exploitation. He had a history of neglect, trauma and systemic disadvantage. The combination of all the identified factors meant that the custodial term of six years and four months was manifestly excessive.

In refusing Jobe's application for leave to appeal, the single judge made the following observations:

In refusing Jhangha's application for leave to appeal, the single judge made the following observations:

In substantial part we agree with the views of the single judge. This was a very serious attack on an individual in his father's home. He was attacked by a group armed with machetes and was caused very serious injuries. The youth of the two applicants justified some reduction in the sentence, but their criminality called for serious punishment.

In the case of Jobe, we would add to the observations of the single judge that there was here no mis-direction in identifying the starting point for an adult offender before modifying that figure to reflect the applicant's age and immaturity; the judge was entitled to proceed on the basis that this was a joint enterprise for which each participant bore some responsibility; the judge had proper regard to the material before him which went to the applicant's level of educational development and maturity; the judge gave proper weight to the evidence relating to Jobe's adverse experiences and his consequent vulnerability; and the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did as to the appropriate credit for the guilty plea.

In the case of Jhangha, we would add to the observations of the single judge that the sentencing judge made clear all of the factors that he was taking into account in reaching his decision to reduce by one third the starting point that would be appropriate in the case of an adult. Those factors, which included the positive decision following the NRM procedure, justified that reduction. The precise amount of reduction to reflect age and immaturity is a matter for the judgment of the court. In our view the judge was right to conclude that the factors to which he referred justified a reduction of one third of the adult figure.

In those circumstances we conclude that the application of neither applicant is properly arguable. Accordingly, we refuse both renewed applications.

We close by expressing our thanks to counsel for their clear and helpful submissions.