R v Ammuod Osmen

Sentencing an attempted robbery under the relevant guideline requires separate assessment of culpability and harm. An offender may fall within culpability category B where he intends the victim to believe that he has a weapon, even if no weapon is seen. Aggravating features may justify a significant increase within the applicable category, but should not elevate the offence into a higher bracket where the existing range provides a just and proportionate sentence. The sentence must also reflect that the offence was only attempted.

Following trial at the Crown Court at Harrow, the appellant was convicted of attempted robbery after taking hold of the victim and pulling him towards a dark alleyway while making him believe that he had a weapon. The victim resisted, no property was taken, and no physical harm was caused. The appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence, arguing that the offence belonged in a lower guideline category and that the aggravating factors did not justify the sentence imposed. The central issues were the proper culpability and harm categorisation, the effect of aggravating factors, and the appropriate reduction for an attempt.

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent that the five-year sentence was quashed and a sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment substituted. A surcharge of £228 was imposed because none had been imposed by the Recorder.
2. The offence was properly placed in medium culpability category B. Although no knife was seen, the appellant plainly intended the victim to believe that he had a weapon. The absence of an actual weapon therefore did not require placement in a lower culpability category. As no physical harm was caused, the offence properly fell within harm category 3.
3. The Recorder correctly identified significant aggravating features. These included the time and place of the offending, the appellant’s previous convictions, breach of the criminal behaviour order, and offending during the currency of a community order. There was little mitigation.
4. Those features justified a significant uplift within the applicable guideline range, but did not take the attempted robbery into the next sentencing bracket. The range for the category 3B offence was sufficient to provide a just and proportionate sentence.
5. Taking the completed offence as attracting a sentence at the top of the category range, namely four years, the court reduced the sentence by six months to reflect the attempt. The reduction took account of the determined nature of the attempt and the fact that it was thwarted by the victim.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On appeal from the Crown Court at Harrow, the sentence was quashed and three and a half years’ imprisonment substituted. A £228 surcharge was imposed. The appeal was allowed to that extent: [2024] EWCA Crim 848.
• Crown Court at Harrow: Following conviction for attempted robbery, the appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Recorder also revoked an earlier community order, and no surcharge was imposed.