REGINA v KHALID YUSUF

In sentencing for multiple offences, the judge may select a lead offence and impose an aggregate sentence reflecting the totality of the offending, with other sentences running concurrently where appropriate. An appellate sentence challenge requires an error of principle or a sentence that is manifestly excessive. The assessment includes the totality of the offending, available mitigation and credit for guilty pleas. Mental-health difficulties and substance abuse are relevant considerations, but do not automatically make a sentence excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty to blackmail and two robberies arising from separate indictments. On 3 November 2021, the Crown Court imposed an extended sentence of 12 years, comprising seven years’ custody and an extended licence period of five years. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the other robbery and the blackmail.

A single judge refused leave to appeal. The renewed application challenged the increase to the custodial term and alleged that insufficient account had been taken of mental-health difficulties, other personal mitigation and the guilty pleas. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

Per Mr Justice Turner, delivering the judgment of the court, the application was refused.

1. The sentencing judge was entitled to take the robbery in the third indictment as the lead offence and to impose a sentence reflecting the applicant’s offending across all three indictments. Making the sentences for the other offences concurrent was consistent with the principle of totality.
2. The court adopted the single judge’s assessment that the robberies fell within category 2B of the relevant sentencing guidelines, with a starting point of four years and a range of three to six years. The applicant’s repeated robbery convictions and the presence of two robbery offences justified a sentence at the top of the range before credit for guilty pleas.
3. The appellate question was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive having regard to the totality of the offending, the available mitigation and the credit due for the guilty pleas. The sentencing judge had taken the applicant’s mental-health history into account, together with antisocial personality traits, substance abuse and poor compliance with treatment.
4. The applicant’s mental-health difficulties did not require a greater reduction. The circumstances described in the medical evidence, including substantial crack-cocaine use at the time of the offences, did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2022] EWCA Crim 826.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Wood Green and Crown Court at Harrow: imposed the extended sentence on 3 November 2021.