Alikhel, R v

When sentencing, the court should first weigh all aggravating and mitigating features to identify the proper sentence after trial. It should then apply credit for a guilty plea as the final step. In assessing personal mitigation for a young offender, the offender’s age may require particular weight. A sentence is manifestly excessive where the sentencing judge both adopts the wrong sequence and gives insufficient weight to the overall mitigation.

The appellant, aged 18 when he committed the offence, pleaded guilty at Woolwich Crown Court to aggravated burglary. The offence was a serious, planned gang burglary of a lodging house at night, involving theft of tobacco, cash and a resident’s savings. He had relevant previous convictions, including burglary and robbery.

On 10 February 2017, the Crown Court imposed four years’ detention in a young offender institution. With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, principally because insufficient weight had been given to his personal mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of four years’ detention was quashed and replaced with a sentence of two years and eight months’ detention in a young offender institution.
2. The sentencing judge adopted an erroneous approach by allowing full credit for the guilty plea before considering personal mitigation. The proper sequence is to assess all aggravating and mitigating features and determine the appropriate sentence after trial, then give the appropriate reduction for the guilty plea as the final step.
3. The starting point selected under the relevant sentencing guideline, and the balancing of youth against the appellant’s previous convictions, were not challenged. However, the court held that the appellant’s young age required particular regard when assessing the weight of his personal mitigation.
4. In the circumstances, the judge had given too little weight to the overall force of that mitigation. Together with the error of approach, this made the four-year sentence manifestly excessive in length.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted two years and eight months’ detention.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: On 10 February 2017 imposed four years’ detention in a young offender institution following the appellant’s guilty plea to aggravated burglary.