R v Adel Kerari

This is an application by His Majesty's Attorney General, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for leave to refer to this court a sentence which she regards as unduly lenient.

The respondent is Adel Karari. He is now 27 years of age. On 7 October 2025, in the Crown Court at Inner London, he pleaded guilty to six counts of robbery and one count of fraud.

On 9 January 2026, he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Ian Darling to concurrent terms of 32 months' imprisonment on each count. The total sentence was therefore one of 32 months' imprisonment (two years and eight months). The judge gave him 33 per cent credit for the guilty plea, although, should we grant leave to make the Reference, there is an issue as to whether credit for plea should have been 25 per cent. The six offences of robbery were committed in June 2023.

It is submitted by Mr Holland, who appears on behalf of the Attorney General, that: the sentence is unduly lenient because the judge had simply failed to increase the overall sentence to reflect totality; the judge had made an unwarranted downward adjustment because of delay; and the judge had made an unwarranted downward adjustment to ensure parity with sentences imposed on others who had been involved in the same offending.

On behalf of Mr Karari, it is submitted by Miss Anderson that: totality was properly considered by the judge; it was appropriate to reflect the delay that had occurred in the course of proceedings; the sentence properly reflected the role played by Mr Karari and issues of disparity might arise if the sentence was increased; and that it was not unduly lenient.

On 1 June 2023, at around 6.45 pm, Mr Karari was one of four men who boarded a Piccadilly line train at Russell Square station. A female passenger stood up from her seat and walked to the door to get off the train. The group blocked her exit, and one of them gestured for her to hand over her phone. She did not do so. She pushed past the group and entered the station. The group followed her into the station and up an escalator. As she walked along a corridor, the group again approached her. The same man who had demanded her phone made a similar gesture. He punched her in the left eye and then attempted to remove the phone from her pocket. She ended up on the ground. One of the group kicked her in the head. Members of the public entered the corridor and came to her assistance. Her headphones had fallen to the ground in the attack. One of the group picked up the headphones and the group left. The headphones were worth approximately £100. As a result of that incident, the victim's face was bleeding. She was left with a cut and a bruise, which we have seen on the available photographs. The Crown submitted that that offence involved the use of very significant force for the purposes of offence specific guideline.

On 2 June 2023 (the following day) Mr Karari was one of a group of five men who approached members of the public on an escalator at Holborn underground station at about 10.40 pm. The group engaged the members of the public in conversation by offering them chocolate bars. One man said that he did not want a chocolate bar and that they should "just fuck off". The group followed that man to the bottom of a staircase where they surrounded him and repeatedly punched him to the head and face. He shouted for help. Members of the public intervened and the attack came to an end. At some stage during the attack his wallet was taken. The wallet contained his bankcards, which he managed to deactivate before they were used. The wallet was subsequently recovered from the home address of one of the co-defendants. The victim of this robbery sustained a suspected head injury and he went to hospital for an MRI scan. He also suffered a nosebleed.

On 3 June the next day at about 4 am, Mr Karari was one of a group of five men travelling on a Piccadilly line train between Leicester Square and Russell Square. As the train approached Russell Square station, the group entered a carriage where there was only one passenger who was described as "non binary". Three of the group sat directly opposite her and the other two sat in seats either side of her. She got off the train at Russell Square station. The group followed her and blocked her exit. One of them kicked her in the back. She moved away from them and one of the group demanded her phone. She asked that they did not hurt her and one of the group kicked her in the ankle which caused her to fall to the ground. Her mobile phone fell out of a pocket and was taken. She was grabbed by three members of the group. She reached out to press a nearby assistance button, and one of the group removed her Apple watch which she was able to snatch back. Her handbag was taken. One of the group looked through it and then discarded it. The mobile phone was worth about £2,000. She had to pay an insurance excess to obtain a replacement, but she lost access to the photographs which were stored on the phone and which were of sentimental value. She was left with a bleeding finger, bruising and swelling to the leg, and pain in the temple area.

On 3 June 2023, Mr Karari was one of a group of four men who approached a male passenger on the southbound Northern line platform at Leicester Square underground station at around 4 am. The male passenger was heavily intoxicated. The Crown said that both he and the previous victim were targeted due to vulnerabilities. The group surrounded him and he was attacked with repeated punches to the head. He ended up on the ground. His mobile phone, key fob and wallet were stolen. The wallet contained £20 in cash and his identity cards. His face was bruised and swollen. When he arrived home, he realised that he had two superficial stab wounds to his abdomen, which were later glued shut at hospital. The Crown say that very significant force was used against him. However, it was common ground, by reason of a basis of plea, that Mr Karari was unaware that other members of the group were carrying a knife.

Again, on 3 June, at Goldhawk Road underground station, Mr Karari was one of a group of three men who approached a male passenger on a platform. One of the group attempted to grab his mobile phone. He got up and attempted to walk away. The group surrounded him. They attempted to take his bag and mobile phone. He resisted, and one of the group produced a fruit knife. That caused the passenger to stop struggling, and the bag, the mobile phone and some earphones were taken. The earphones were subsequently recovered from the address of one of the other co-defendants. After the incident, the passenger realised that he had two stab wounds to the leg, and he attended hospital for treatment. The Crown again say that very significant force was used, although it is common ground that Mr Karari did not know about the knife.

The offending covered by counts 7 and 8 occurred on Sunday 11 June 2023. Mr Karari was one of a group of four men travelling eastbound on the Central line approaching Stratford underground station. One of the group reached into the pocket of a passenger and removed his mobile phone. The passenger demanded his phone back. A co-defendant who had taken the phone got off the train at Leyton underground station. The passenger followed him and continued to demand the return of his phone. The passenger then realised that the man was one of a group of four. He followed the group out of the station and into an alleyway, where he was then attacked. All four men repeatedly kicked the passenger in the chest and the head. That continued for approximately 30 seconds. His wallet and keys were taken. His wallet contained bank cards and identity cards. One of the group then produced a knife, which caused the passenger to leave the alleyway. He had sustained an injury to his face.

The bank cards were then used at two convenience stores (count 8, fraud). CCTV footage from the stores shows a group of men, including Mr Karari, in the stores when the cards were used.

It seems that after that Mr Karari stopped participating in the robberies, others from the group continued to offend and were caught and remanded in custody. On 12 July 2023, Mr Karari was recognised by a police officer and was therefore circulated as wanted.

After a court hearing relating to the others there was an inadvertent deletion, we were told this morning, of the information that Mr Karari was wanted.

In the interim, Mr Karari's offending continued. On 14 November 2023, he assaulted an emergency worker and was arrested. On 15 November he was sentenced in the Magistrates' Court, having pleaded guilty, to a conditional discharge for 12 months. He then left for Ireland. His offending did not cease, because on 10 December 2023 (less than one month later), he committed a sexual assault in Ireland, to which he pleaded guilty on 12 June 2024. He was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment. He was arrested at his home address on 4 September 2025, following his return at some stage to this jurisdiction. That was some two years and three months after the offences were committed. When he was interviewed he answered "No comment" to all the questions he was asked about them.

He appeared at the Magistrates' Court on 5 September 2025. The Better Case Management Form recorded that there was no indication of plea. It was on 7 October 2025 that Mr Karari entered guilty pleas to counts 1 and 3 to 8. His not guilty plea to count 2 was ordered to lie on the file. It was at that stage that the Basis of Plea was uploaded to the Digital Case System. It read:

The co-defendants were dealt with following their guilty pleas at an earlier hearing. It seems that they were given credit for that. They were sentenced on 30 October 2023 (four months after the offences had taken place). Ali Mansour, who was 19 years of age at the time of the offence and 20 at the time of sentence, pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing to five counts of robbery. He had previous convictions. He was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment. Brandon Reeves, who was 18 years of age at the time of the offending and 19 at the date of sentence, pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing to five counts of robbery, three counts of attempted robbery and one count of possession of an offensive weapon. He had two previous convictions for four offences, burglary of non-dwelling houses, assaulting an emergency worker, criminal damage and theft. He was sentenced to 40 months' imprisonment. (When sentencing Mr Karari, the judge said of Reeves that he was very young. The judge thought he had said that Mr Reeves was 16 years of age at the time of the offences.) Musa Lebdiri, who was 19 years of age at the time of the offending and 20 at the time of sentence, also pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing to three counts of robbery and one count of handling stolen goods. He was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment. Normane Draachour, who was 21 years of age at the time of the offending and 22 at sentence, again pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing and was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment. The issue of disparity arises from those sentence.

The Sentencing Council's Guideline on Robbery indicates three levels of culpability: High Culpability A, Medium Culpability B and Lesser Culpability C. Under High Culpability A, reliance is placed on "the use of very significant force in the commission of the offence". Category B medium culpability is where neither factor A nor C is present.

There are three categories of harm. Category 1 is "serious physical and/or psychological harm caused to the victim". Category 2 is "other cases where characteristics for categories 1 or 3 are not present".

It was submitted in the court below on behalf of the prosecution that counts 1, 5, 6 and 7 were category 2A offences and that counts 3 and 4 were category 2B offences. Under the offence specific guideline a 2A offence has a starting point of five years' custody, with a range of four to eight years. A 2B offence has a starting point of four years' custody, with a range of three to six years.

When he passed sentence on Mr Karari, the judge expressly said that he would order all of the sentences to run concurrently and make an uplift for totality. The judge did not explain how he had made such an uplift for totality.

The judge said that an appropriate starting point would be somewhere between four and a half to five years' custody. That is for one offence. He did not identify any aggravating features, although it is right to record that there were two: the targeting of high value goods (mobile phones and bank cards); and the targeting of at least two of the victims because of their vulnerability.

As far as the mitigating features were concerned, the judge said:

On the reduction for pleading guilty, the judge said:

The judge then referred to the co-defendant Reeves. He said:

Relevant principles of law applicable to references include: the trial judge is normally best placed to assess all relevant matters; the jurisdiction exists only to correct gross errors; and that even if a sentence is unduly lenient, this court maintains a discretion not to increase the sentence.

Our attention has been drawn to Attorney General's Reference No 44 of 2025 (R v Guirdham (Daniel)) [2025] EWCA Crim 2211, which, although it did not set out any general principle, was a case where the Court of Appeal had refused to increase the sentence. In giving the judgment of the court, Scott Baker LJ said:

It was common ground that the sentencing judge's task was to ensure that the sentence imposed was just and proportionate to the offending as a whole.

In our judgment it is not apparent how the judge dealt with the issue of totality. In Miss Anderson's favour, it is right to point out that the judge was aware of the issue of totality, because he referred to it a number of times. Indeed, he ordered the sentences to run concurrently, as he was entitled to, and said that the other criminality would be reflected in the sentence imposed. The difficulty is that he does not seem to have done that at all.

It is also difficult to see how delay should have been taken into account in Mr Karari’s favour in circumstances where, after the expiry of the conditional discharge and at a time before he knew that he was wanted in relation to the matters with which we are concerned, he travelled to Ireland but was then in custody in Ireland for a period because he committed a sexual assault there.

We recognise the fact that we have to ensure that there is no unjustified disparity between offenders who have committed the same offences but appear before the courts at different times. It is therefore necessary to share what we would have done, before considering the important effect of disparity on this case.

In our judgment each of these offences merited a starting point of five years' imprisonment. They all involved a significant use of force, and there were six separate offences. It is plainly impermissible just to add the number of offences and multiply any sentence by five, but some regard must be had to the effect of the separate offending on separate victims. The very least that the sentencing judge, in our judgment, could have taken was a sentence of eight years' imprisonment, before there was any adjustment for matters such as delay or other mitigation. As we have already indicated, there was no issue of delay to justify a reduction.

So far as mitigation is concerned, there was evidence contained in the report of Dr Rogers, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, about Mr Karari's very difficult and deprived upbringing in Algeria, and the complex, persistent bereavement disorder from which it was considered he was suffering. It was apparent that Mr Karari had become addicted to heroin and it seems from all the material before us that he has addressed that addiction. Accordingly, it is right to say that in the period of time since the offending he has managed to address some of the problems in his life. However, a current prison report indicates that Mr Kerari has had four negative adjudications for fighting with other prisoners.

In all the circumstances, however, where we are confronted with sentences which were imposed on the co-defendants, and having regard to all relevant features, we propose to take a sentence of five years' imprisonment to reflect all of Mr Karari's offending with all of its features, including the need to avoid very significant and unjustifiable disparity with the other co-accused. To that sentence we will apply what in our judgment is the appropriate discount of 25 per cent for plea, there was no justification for giving a discount of a third, which would give a sentence of 45 months' imprisonment. We will therefore quash the concurrent terms of 32 months' imprisonment and substitute concurrent terms of 45 months' imprisonment on each count.

Accordingly, we will grant leave for the Reference to be made. We will allow the Reference and the sentences will be increased from concurrent terms of 32 months on each count to concurrent terms of 45 months' imprisonment on each count. We should finish by recording our gratitude to both Mr Holland and Miss Anderson for their considerable assistance.