Sweeney, R v

In assessing whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, the appellate court must assess the offending as a whole, including multiplicity, planning, use of weapons or other means of violence, harm, prior similar offending and offending committed while subject to an order. Sentencing guidelines directed to a single offence do not prevent an appropriately higher sentence for a serious course of criminal conduct involving several offences.

The mitigation due to youth and immaturity is a matter of judgment and degree. Its effect on culpability must be assessed in the context of the offence. Previous similar offending and sophisticated execution may demonstrate criminal maturity and justify a limited reduction.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at St Albans to three robberies and one attempted robbery committed when he was 17. He and others targeted young people after a music event, using knives, disguise and CS spray. The offences caused physical injury and serious continuing psychological effects to one victim.

The sentencing judge imposed concurrent terms of five years and four months’ detention in a young offender institution for the robberies, and a concurrent three-year term for attempted robbery. The judge treated the offending as lying on the border of categories 1 and 2, adopted a 10-year starting point before mitigation and plea credit, and took account of the appellant’s previous similar robberies and the fact that he offended while subject to a youth rehabilitation order.

By leave of the single judge, the appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient weight had been given to his youth, remorse and subsequent good behaviour.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent sentences were not excessive, still less manifestly excessive.

2. The judge was entitled to adopt a 10-year sentence for the robbery counts before allowing for youth, other mitigation and the guilty plea. The applicable sentencing guidelines concerned a single offence, whereas this was a serious course of criminal conduct comprising three robberies and an attempted robbery.

3. The offending involved high culpability and serious psychological harm, or something close to it. It was planned: the group equipped itself, targeted an event where young people could be isolated, used disguises, knives and CS spray, and disposed of evidence. The appellant also had previous convictions for similar robberies and committed these offences while subject to a youth rehabilitation order for earlier offending.

4. The reduction from 10 years to six years before plea credit properly reflected youth and other mitigation. The allowance for age and immaturity is a matter of judgment and degree, assessed in the context of the particular offence. Although the appellant was 17 when he offended, his previous similar offending and the sophistication of these offences demonstrated considerable criminal maturity.

5. The court recognised the appellant’s lack of reoffending on bail and good custodial behaviour as grounds for hope, but those matters did not show that the sentence was manifestly excessive. No criticism was made of the 10 per cent credit allowed for the guilty plea.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2019] EWCA Crim 1090.
• Crown Court at St Albans: on 23 January 2019, imposed concurrent sentences of detention in a young offender institution after the appellant pleaded guilty to three robberies and one attempted robbery.