Hada, R. v

When sentencing a child or young person for robbery, a court may use the adult guideline as a cross-check where custody is unavoidable. It must nevertheless adopt an individualistic approach and impose the shortest custodial term commensurate with the offence.

The reduction for youth must reflect the offender’s age, maturity and susceptibility to influence. Previous convictions should not reduce that allowance where they have already aggravated the notional adult sentence, or where they do not reliably demonstrate sophistication or maturity. Serious psychological harm must be established by evidence; it cannot simply be inferred from the frightening nature of a robbery. The totality principle remains important where offences are closely connected in time.

The appellant, who was under 18, pleaded guilty to three robberies and to possessing an imitation firearm when arrested. He had committed two night-time gang robberies shortly before his sixteenth birthday and a further robbery, involving a BB gun, when aged 16.

At Sheffield Crown Court he received consecutive detention sentences totalling six and a half years under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The sentencing judge assessed the final robbery at the cusp of the most serious harm category, reduced adult-equivalent sentences by one third for age, and imposed consecutive terms.

On appeal, the central issues were whether serious psychological harm could be inferred without evidence from the victim, the proper reduction for youth, and whether the aggregate sentence was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The total sentence of six and a half years’ detention was too long. The court quashed the consecutive 18-month sentence for the second robbery and substituted an 18-month concurrent sentence, reducing the total to five years.

2. The judge was entitled to conclude that immediate custody was unavoidable. It was also appropriate to consider the adult robbery guideline as an aid to fixing the length of a youth sentence. However, the relevant guidance required an individualistic, child-focused approach, with rehabilitation where possible and the shortest custody commensurate with seriousness.

3. The judge erred in treating the third robbery as involving serious psychological harm. The robbery was plainly frightening and may have caused significant psychological harm, but there was no relevant evidence from which the court could find harm at the higher level of seriousness.

4. The reduction from adult sentencing levels should have been about one half. The appellant’s previous robberies had already aggravated the notional adult sentence. They could not safely justify reducing the allowance for youth, since offences committed at 13 might reflect immaturity and susceptibility to peer pressure rather than criminal sophistication.

5. Consecutive sentences were not wrong in principle. Nevertheless, totality was particularly important because two robberies were only hours apart. The appellant’s youth, the influence of older companions, the delay before sentence, and his marked progress in custody all supported a significant reduction. All other sentencing provisions, including 197 days’ credit, remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part and varied the sentence by making the 18-month sentence on count 2 concurrent.

• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 9 June 2017 imposed detention sentences totalling six and a half years.