R v Chinedu Nwakwesili

In sentencing a young offender for robbery, the vulnerability of a substantially younger victim and a substantial number of recent convictions, including similar offending, may together constitute very serious aggravating factors. The sentence may properly be set at the top of the adult guideline range before reductions for youth and a guilty plea. Youth remains material mitigation, but the absence of evidence of particular immaturity may limit further mitigation. An appellate court will not intervene where the sentencing judge applied the relevant guideline and principles and the final sentence is not excessive.

The appellant, aged 17 when he robbed V, a 14-year-old boy, by knocking him to the ground and taking his e-scooter, pleaded guilty. The Crown Court at Manchester sentenced him, at age 18, to 32 months in a young offender institution.

The sentencing judge treated the appellant’s previous robberies and other serious offending, together with V’s vulnerability, as aggravating factors. Applying the Child Robbery guideline and the adult street-robbery guideline, the judge concluded that a Youth Court would likely have remitted the case to the Crown Court as a grave crime under section 25 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The judge assessed the adult sentence at the top of the guideline range and then reduced it for youth and plea.

The appellant argued that excessive weight had been given to his previous convictions. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had erred in applying the relevant guidelines and principles or imposed an excessive sentence.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. The court agreed that, given the appellant’s history of offending, a Youth Court would have been bound to consider custody and would very likely have remitted the case to the Crown Court for sentence under the grave-crime provisions in section 25 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
2. The robbery was mean and violent and was committed against a much younger and vulnerable victim. The number of recent convictions, including previous robberies, and the victim’s vulnerability were together very serious aggravating factors. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that those factors would have placed an adult sentence at the top of the guideline range.
3. The judge correctly followed the Child Robbery guideline in concluding that custody was inevitable. Apart from age, there was very little mitigation, and nothing suggested that the appellant was particularly immature for his age.
4. The judge was entitled to allow a full one-third reduction for youth, despite the appellant being close to 18 when he offended, and a further one-third reduction for his guilty plea at the first opportunity.
5. Although the resulting sentence was severe for a young offender, the court could identify no error in the application of the relevant guidelines or principles and concluded that the final sentence was not excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 4 December 2025, dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Manchester: The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery on 21 May 2025 and was sentenced on 26 August 2025 to 32 months in a young offender institution.