Armsden-MccLennon& Anor, R. v

In assessing totality, separate and serious episodes of robbery against different victims may properly attract consecutive sentences. A substantial reduction is not required where the offending was separated in time and involved distinct criminal conduct.

The guideline for children and young people applies to an offender who is under 18 at conviction, not merely at the date of the offence. Youth at the time of offending nevertheless remains significant personal mitigation. Credit for a guilty plea should be applied only after fixing the appropriate sentence after all other mitigation and totality considerations.

The appellants pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court to three robberies and an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offences comprised two violent and threatening group robberies, committed several months apart against different victims.

The judge imposed total sentences of seven years’ detention in a young offender institution on McClennon and five-and-a-half years’ detention on O. Each appealed on the grounds that the sentences were manifestly excessive because insufficient weight had been given to totality, youth and, in O’s case, immaturity.

The court also considered whether the sentence imposed on O for actual bodily harm under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 section 91 was lawful.

1. The appeals against the overall sentences were dismissed. The adult-equivalent total of 10 years after trial was not excessive, let alone manifestly excessive. The robberies were distinct episodes, against different victims and separated by several months. Consecutive sentences were therefore justified, and totality did not require a large reduction.

2. Both robberies had serious aggravating features. These included group violence, use of machetes, humiliation of victims, significant financial loss, and lasting psychological harm. The second robbery was also committed after the appellants had been released pending further investigation of the first.

3. The guideline for sentencing children and young people did not apply to McClennon because he was 18 when convicted. His age when offending remained substantial mitigation, but his previous offending properly tempered the reduction. O’s reduction adequately reflected his youth, immaturity, guilty plea and poor record.

4. The sentencing judge had applied the guilty-plea discount at the wrong stage. It should have been applied after fixing the sentence otherwise appropriate following mitigation and totality. The error had favoured the appellants and did not make either sentence excessive.

5. O’s six-month sentence for actual bodily harm under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was unlawful. Section 91 was unavailable because actual bodily harm does not carry an adult maximum sentence of at least 14 years. That sentence was replaced with no separate penalty; the overall sentence remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeals against sentence dismissed, save that O’s unlawful sentence on count 2 was replaced with no separate penalty.
• Leicester Crown Court: On 2 April 2019, the appellants were sentenced following guilty pleas to robbery and assault offences.