R v Brandon Dalkin

Time limits for criminal appeals remain important, but the court may extend time and consider the merits as if an application were timely where the circumstances justify that course.

When sentencing an offender aged 18 to 25, the judge must assess the offender’s true maturity at the time of the offence and make appropriate allowance for age or lack of maturity. In deciding whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, the appellate court must balance aggravating and mitigating factors. Significant rehabilitation, remorse, relevant personal circumstances and delay not attributable to the offender may require a downward adjustment. A guilty plea entered only at the first day of a retrial after an aborted trial may properly attract limited credit.

The appellant was convicted of two robberies committed when he was aged 19. He had produced a knife and threatened a 14-year-old boy and an adult complainant. After an earlier trial was aborted, he pleaded guilty on the first day of the retrial.

The Crown Court at Teesside sentenced him on 20 February 2023 to concurrent terms of six years and eight months’ imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was 266 days out of time. The single judge referred the extension application to the full court, which considered whether the sentence was excessive, whether the substantial mitigation and delay had been properly reflected, and whether sufficient credit had been given for the guilty pleas.

1. Extension of time and leave. The court granted the substantial extension of time and considered the merits as though the application had been made in time. That approach was justified by the particular circumstances, but time limits remain important and the approach is not automatic.
2. Starting point and plea. Knife use placed the robberies in the high culpability bracket. The psychological harm fell fairly within the margin between category 1 and category 2. A seven-year starting point was therefore not excessive. The 5% reduction for pleas entered on the first day of the retrial, after an earlier trial had been aborted, was appropriate.
3. Mitigation and maturity. The sentencing remarks did not explain how the aggravating and mitigating factors had been balanced. The judge had also wrongly understood the appellant to be aged 20 rather than just 19. A sentencing judge must assess the offender’s true level of maturity at the time of offending and make appropriate allowances. The pre-sentence report indicated low maturity at the time of the offences, and the guideline’s reference to age or lack of maturity could apply to offenders aged 18 to 25.
4. Appellate assessment. The court conducted the balancing exercise itself. Aggravating features included two victims, one of them a child, the prolonged incident, group offending, knife use and offending while on bail or released under investigation. Mitigation included the appellant’s age and low maturity, difficult background, recent family deaths, lack of planning, genuine remorse, substantial rehabilitation and positive family and social changes.
5. The appellant had made significant progress during the four years since the offences, although some of the delay resulted from his insistence on a trial. In the circumstances, the mitigation outweighed the aggravating factors. The appropriate sentence was six years after trial, reduced by 5% for the guilty plea and rounded down to five years and eight months.
6. Disposition. The appeal was allowed. On each count, the court substituted a sentence of five years and eight months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted an extension of time, granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, substituting concurrent sentences of five years and eight months’ imprisonment. [2025] EWCA Crim 117
2. Crown Court at Teesside: sentenced the appellant on 20 February 2023 to concurrent terms of six years and eight months’ imprisonment for two robberies.