R v Adel Yussuf & Ors

A direction on conspiracy is adequate where, read as a whole, it makes clear that the defendant must have agreed prospectively to participate in the planned offence. It cannot reasonably permit conviction merely for assistance given after the substantive offence.

In assessing an extended determinate sentence, the sentencing judge must address both significant risk of serious harm and whether an extension is needed for public protection. On review, the appellate court assesses the material available at sentence and does not take account of later events. A properly imposed sentence is not reduced simply because a co-offender may have received undue leniency.

Yussuf, Olubode and other defendants were convicted at the Crown Court at Harrow of conspiracy to rob and conspiracy to possess an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. Orji had pleaded guilty to both linked conspiracies. The offences concerned an organised armed robbery at a dwelling, supported by tracker, telephone and cell-site evidence.

Yussuf appealed against conviction, contending that the directions permitted conviction based only on his later involvement in an attempt to recover the tracker. Orji appealed his extended determinate sentence. Yussuf and Olubode renewed applications for leave to appeal their sentences, relying principally on sentence disparity.

1. Yussuf’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. The directions required the jury to be sure that he had agreed with another to pursue a course of conduct amounting to robbery and had agreed to play a part in that plan with knowledge of the type of crime involved. Their language was prospective. They could not reasonably be understood to permit conviction merely because Yussuf may later have helped Orji try to recover the tracker. The separate direction on the imitation-firearm conspiracy, and the direction that a true or possibly true alibi for the time of the robbery required acquittal, reinforced that conclusion. The verdicts were safe.
2. Orji’s appeal against sentence was dismissed. Although the sentencing judge might have expressed the reasoning more clearly, he had separately found both a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences and a need to extend the sentence for public protection. That showed that he had addressed the necessary two-stage exercise. In any event, an extended determinate sentence was justified by Orji’s leading and recruiting role in a planned, violent home invasion involving an apparent handgun, his antecedents and the risk of grave physical or psychological harm. The subsequent sentence imposed in unrelated firearms proceedings was irrelevant because the court reviewed the material that was before the sentencing judge in 2021. A five-year extension period was within the judge’s careful evaluative discretion.
3. The renewed applications by Yussuf and Olubode for leave to appeal sentence were refused. The robbery was properly placed in Category 1A. All participants knew that an apparent firearm would be used and played important roles in the planned group offence. Their offending on licence and the other aggravating features justified the 13-year starting-point sentences. The difference between their sentences and Orji’s did not disclose unlawful disparity. The relevant question is whether right-thinking members of the public would conclude that something had gone wrong in the administration of justice. An arguably lenient sentence for one offender does not justify reducing a proper sentence for another: Saliuka [2014] EWCA Crim 1907.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2023] EWCA Crim 339, dismissed Yussuf’s appeal against conviction and Orji’s appeal against sentence, and refused Yussuf’s and Olubode’s renewed applications for leave to appeal sentence.
• Crown Court at Harrow: On 21 June 2021, convicted Yussuf and Olubode of conspiracy to rob and conspiracy to possess an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. On 3 September 2021, sentenced each to 13 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to rob, with concurrent firearm-conspiracy sentences. Orji, who had pleaded guilty, received an extended determinate sentence comprising 10 years and six months’ custody and a five-year extension period.