R v Maximus Quartey

On a reference for an unduly lenient sentence, the court must assess the whole sentencing exercise, including totality, mitigation and the proper sequence for any reduction for a guilty plea. A sentence may be unduly lenient where the cumulative effect of error produces a sentence materially below the lowest proper sentence.

However, a finding of undue leniency does not require an increase. The Court of Appeal retains a discretion and may leave a suspended sentence unchanged where reliable post-sentence evidence shows substantial rehabilitation and a genuine move away from offending.

The Solicitor General referred the respondent’s sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The respondent, aged 18, had pleaded guilty to three street robberies committed with a group over a short period. One robbery involved threats of a weapon and forced transfers of money.

The Crown Court imposed concurrent custodial terms of 24 months, suspended for 24 months, with unpaid work and rehabilitation activity requirements. The Solicitor General submitted that the judge had insufficiently reflected the additional offences, allowed excessive mitigation, made a further reduction after applying credit for the guilty pleas, and wrongly suspended the sentence.

The central issues were whether the sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, whether it should be increased.

1. The court granted leave, held that the sentence was unduly lenient, but declined to increase it.

2. The four-year starting point for the lead robbery, categorised as 2B, was permissible. The judge was also entitled to aggregate the additional criminality into the lead offence when applying totality. Given the planning, group offending, use of balaclavas, darkness, vulnerability of one victim and the further robberies, the pre-mitigation sentence was difficult to place much below six years.

3. There was substantial mitigation. The respondent had been exploited and pressured by others, was only just an adult, showed genuine remorse during the offending, returned one victim’s telephone, suffered serious injuries in prison, and had engaged with supportive services. Even allowing fully for those matters, however, a 24-month sentence could not properly be reached. The lowest proper sentence was close to 30 months. The further six-month reduction, made after the guilty-plea discount, contributed to the undue leniency.

4. After making that finding, the court retained a discretion whether to increase the sentence. It gave considerable weight to reliable evidence that the respondent was making real progress on the suspended sentence order, engaging with rehabilitation, pursuing employment and turning away from the offending lifestyle. It was therefore inappropriate to alter the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the Crown Court sentence unduly lenient but exercised its discretion not to increase it: [2024] EWCA Crim 745.
• Crown Court: On 18 April 2024, the respondent received 24 months’ custody for the lead robbery, concurrent six-month terms for the other robberies, suspended for 24 months, with unpaid work and rehabilitation requirements.