Hussain, R. v

In sentencing an armed street robbery, a judge may properly place the offence in a category reflecting more than minimal psychological harm even where there is no physical injury or victim impact statement. The circumstances of a night-time knife-point robbery by two attackers may demonstrate that level of harm.

A participant whose actions initiate the robbery is not peripheral merely because a co-offender produces the weapon. Previous relevant convictions are aggravating, and sentence disparity is not unjust where the co-offender has previous good character. An appellate court will not interfere unless the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The applicant was convicted at Croydon Crown Court of robbery and sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment. The robbery involved two offenders stopping a vehicle at night, threatening the driver with a knife and taking cash.

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant challenged the categorisation of harm under the Sentencing Council guideline, his role, the aggravating effect of his previous convictions, disparity with his co-offender’s sentence, and the weight given to personal mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application was rejected on its substantive grounds. The sentence of five years and six months was not arguably manifestly excessive.

2. The judge was entitled to categorise the offence as category 2, with high culpability A. Although there was no physical injury, the court held that the victims suffered more than no or minimal psychological harm. It was a frightening night-time knife-point robbery involving two attackers, one masked, and a substantial sum of money. The guideline starting point of five years’ custody was therefore fairly adopted.

3. The applicant and his co-offender willingly participated and were equally responsible. The applicant initiated the incident by stopping the vehicle. His role was not peripheral merely because the co-offender had the knife and wore the balaclava.

4. The sentencing judge was right to treat the applicant’s previous convictions, including the earlier robbery, as aggravating. There was no unjust disparity with the co-offender’s lower sentence because that offender was of previous good character. The judge had also expressly considered the applicant’s youth, caring responsibilities, prospects and loss of career.

5. The court corrected the form of the sentence. As the applicant was aged 20 when convicted, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 96 required a term of detention in a young offender institution. The court so ordered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2020] EWCA Crim 566, the court rejected the renewed application against sentence, save that it amended the sentence under section 96 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to a term of detention in a young offender institution.

• Croydon Crown Court: On 16 September 2019, the applicant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment.