Yarow, R. v

Where an offender was under 18 when offending but is sentenced after turning 18, the court must give proper regard to the sentence that would have been appropriate under the youth sentencing approach. That consideration may be powerful, but it is not determinative and does not require sentence to be imposed under youth guidelines.

An appellate court will not interfere merely because another judge might have imposed a different sentence. The question is whether there was an error of principle or whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

R v Yarow concerned an offender who was just under 18 when he and two co-accused committed two violent street robberies and associated frauds. All three pleaded guilty in the Central Criminal Court and received concurrent terms of five years' detention in a young offender institution.

The appellant appealed against sentence. He contended that the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to his age at the time of the offences and to the lower youth sentencing range for robbery. The central issue was whether that omission made the sentence erroneous in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The five-year concurrent sentence was neither erroneous in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. Where an offender was 17 when committing an offence, the sentencing court should have regard to the sentence that would have been appropriate under the youth sentencing approach. The court accepted that this may be a powerful consideration, but it is not the sole determining factor. Nor must the offender be sentenced under the youth guidelines after attaining 18.

3. The sentencing judge had the principle in mind. The appellant had raised it directly before sentence, and the judge was aware of Bowker [2008] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 72. The judge was therefore required to give the matter proper regard, rather than to give it a prescribed outcome.

4. The judge was entitled to impose the same sentence as on the co-accused. They had played equal roles in serious, planned and violent robberies of vulnerable victims. The appellant was close to 18 when offending and committed the offences while subject to a recently imposed youth rehabilitation order. Those matters could properly outweigh any further reduction based on age.

5. The appellate question was not whether another judge might have sentenced differently. It was whether the sentencing discretion had been exercised on a wrong principle or had produced a manifestly excessive result. Neither condition was established.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appellant's appeal against sentence.
• Central Criminal Court: Following guilty pleas to two robberies and three frauds, imposed concurrent sentences totalling five years' detention in a young offender institution.