RB & Ors, R. v

Where custody is unavoidable for a child or young person and an adult guideline is used as a reference point, the sentencing court must first identify and adjust the notional adult sentence for offence-related aggravation, mitigation and relevant personal mitigation. It must then make the reduction for youth before giving credit for a guilty plea.

This sequence accords with Sentencing Council guidance and avoids disadvantaging a young offender who properly receives full plea credit despite not pleading at the earliest stage because further advice or assistance was needed. A finding of serious psychological harm may be justified by reliable evidence of the victim’s sustained psychological effects; expert evidence is not indispensable.

The applicants, aged 15 or 16 when offending, pleaded guilty in the Youth Court to a joint robbery and handling a stolen car. They were committed to the Crown Court at Preston, which imposed detention of three years and ten months under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 91.

The robbery involved a knife and an imitation firearm. The shop worker was terrified and later stopped working in the shop because of continuing anxiety and panic. The applicants sought leave to appeal, contending that the judge had overstated the psychological harm, imposed an excessive notional adult sentence, and should have imposed a non-custodial order or a shorter detention and training order.

The applications also raised the proper order for applying the reduction for youth and credit for a guilty plea.

1. The applications for leave to appeal were refused. The sentencing judge had taken a careful and correct overall approach to a grave, planned robbery involving two weapons and a lone shop worker.
2. The judge was entitled to find serious psychological harm and to place the robbery in category 1A. The victim’s later statement showed a continuing and substantial change in his ability to work and his reactions to ordinary events. The absence of expert evidence did not prevent that finding.
3. The notional adult sentence of ten years’ imprisonment after trial was stern but not manifestly excessive. Although somewhat more weight could have been given to mitigation, the aggravating features outweighed it. Significant detention was necessary despite the applicants’ youth, remorse, lack of previous convictions and peer pressure.
4. The court gave guidance on sentencing sequence. Once the court has concluded that custody is unavoidable and may use an adult guideline as a reference point, it must first identify the adult offence category and starting point, then adjust it for aggravating and mitigating factors. It must next reduce the sentence for youth, and only then give credit for a guilty plea. In this respect the court respectfully declined to follow R v D [2019] WLUK 433, and agreed with the approach in R v Armsden-McClennan [2019] EWCA Crim 1415, R v Payne [2019] EWCA Crim 2219 and R v Peters [2020] EWCA Crim 66.
5. The judge had applied the reductions in the wrong order, but the error caused no prejudice on these facts. The sentences therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the applications for leave to appeal against sentence: [2020] EWCA Crim 643.
• Crown Court at Preston — on 12 December 2019, sentenced each applicant to three years and ten months’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
• Youth Court — accepted guilty pleas to robbery and handling stolen goods, and committed the applicants to the Crown Court for sentence.