Pratchet, R.

When applying definitive robbery guidance to an offender aged 18, the court should not treat the offender as an adult merely because he is over 17. The appropriate starting point may fall between the youth and adult starting points. It must then reflect all relevant aggravating and mitigating features, including the gravity of the violence, the circumstances of the attack, remorse and whether the offence was planned.

A sentence founded on a starting point materially above that justified by the guidance and those features is manifestly excessive. Full credit for a timely guilty plea must then be applied to the proper after-trial sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery after a violent night-time street attack on an art dealer. Witnesses described repeated punches and a headbutt, followed by an attempt to take property from the victim while he lay on the ground. The appellant had no relevant previous convictions, expressed remorse and said that the offence had not been planned.

The Recorder at Snaresbrook Crown Court imposed three years’ detention in a young offender institution. The appellant appealed with leave of the single judge, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was the proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s definitive robbery guidance to an 18-year-old offender.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of three years’ detention in a young offender institution and substituted two years and four months’ detention.

2. The offence was a scale two street robbery involving force and injury. The applicable definitive guidance gave a starting point of three years’ detention for a 17-year-old and four years for an adult. Although the appellant was 18, he was not to be treated simply as an adult. His appropriate starting point lay between those figures.

3. The court recognised substantial aggravation. The victim was initially confronted by two men, the offence occurred at night, and the appellant administered a serious and sustained beating. The court did not treat the victim as obviously vulnerable, although prior injuries made him especially susceptible to harm. It also did not sentence on the basis of unparticularised additional injuries.

4. Mitigation included that the robbery was unplanned and that the appellant had shown remorse. Balancing those matters, the proper after-trial starting point was three years and six months, rather than four years and six months. Full credit for the timely guilty plea reduced that sentence to 28 months. The three-year sentence was therefore manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted 28 months’ detention in a young offender institution.

• Snaresbrook Crown Court The Recorder imposed three years’ detention in a young offender institution following the appellant’s guilty plea to attempted robbery.