R v Jonathan Oriba

In a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal will not interfere where the sentencing judge correctly applies the relevant guideline category, assesses the offender’s role from the trial evidence, accounts for aggravating features and convictions, and considers personal mitigation. An offender who materially plans and prepares a serious group robbery may properly be classified as playing a leading role, even if injury prevents participation in the raid. Mitigation may be given limited weight where the offending is serious. A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because co-offenders received lower sentences after guilty-plea reductions. Where the proposed appeal has no merit, an extension of time is unnecessary.

Following conviction after trial at the Crown Court at Southampton, the applicant was sentenced on 28 November 2019 to 18 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to rob. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused by a single judge. He renewed that application and sought an extension of 1,225 days. He argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the offending had been placed in the wrong guideline category, that he had been wrongly treated as playing a leading role, and that his personal mitigation had been insufficiently considered. The central issue was whether there was any arguable sentencing error or basis for treating the sentence as manifestly excessive.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence was not manifestly excessive and there was no error in the sentencing judge’s approach.
2. Guideline category and role. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in category 1A. The robbery was professionally planned, involved very significant force, a sword, threats to members of the public and the theft of jewellery and watches worth about £620,000. The judge was also entitled to find that the applicant played a leading role in the conspiracy. The applicant’s involvement extended beyond driving: he hired vehicles, transported mopeds for use in the robbery and carried out reconnaissance. The judge had presided over the trial and had heard the relevant evidence.
3. Aggravation and mitigation. The guideline starting point was 16 years’ custody. The applicant’s previous convictions justified an upward adjustment. As he had not pleaded guilty, no reduction for an early guilty plea was available. The judge considered the applicant’s personal mitigation, including the impact of the Grenfell Tower fire, but was entitled to conclude that it could not have a very great bearing on the sentence. Lower sentences imposed on co-conspirators reflected their guilty pleas.
4. Extension of time. Since the renewed application had no merit, there was no purpose in granting the requested extension. The court observed that, had it been minded to grant an extension, it would have required precise details of the chronology and reasons for the 1,225-day delay.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2024] EWCA Crim 495, the court refused the renewed application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Single judge. The applicant’s earlier application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at Southampton. Following conviction after trial, the applicant was sentenced on 28 November 2019 to 18 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to rob.