R v Azim Okunol

Sentencing for a conspiracy must reflect the defendant’s own role, intended harm and the aggravating effect of acts carried out pursuant to the conspiracy. A defendant with a lesser planning role must not be sentenced as though he participated in the actual attacks. Continued involvement while attacks are being carried out may move the assessment towards higher culpability, but does not establish a leading role or life-threatening intended harm without evidence. Grave but non-life-threatening injury falls within category 2 harm under the applicable assault guideline. Age, immaturity, good character and other mitigation must also be reflected.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Manchester of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and, on 1 July 2022, was sentenced to eight years’ detention in a young offenders’ institution. His application for leave to appeal was approximately 920 days late. He relied on difficulties obtaining representation, the sentences imposed on co-defendants, and alleged errors in assessing his role and the applicable sentencing categories. In R v Oni [2025] ECWA Crim 12, the sentences of two co-defendants had been reduced. The central issues were whether time should be extended and whether the sentence properly reflected the applicant’s individual role, intended harm and age.

Appeal allowed. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal.

1. The delay was approximately 920 days, but the applicant had attempted to appeal throughout and had faced difficulties obtaining legal representation and progressing the matter. In light of those circumstances and the sentencing disparity disclosed by the co-defendant appeals, the interests of justice required an extension of time.
2. Under R v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R 849, it was for the trial judge to determine the role of a particular defendant in a conspiracy. The appellate court had regard to the trial judge’s advantage in having heard the ten-week trial. The judge was not entitled to take into account the intentions of defendants convicted of conspiracy to murder, although the sentencing remarks did not show that he had done so.
3. The sentencing approach nevertheless treated the applicant as if he had participated in the actual attacks and failed to reflect his lesser role in planning group activity, a culpability B factor. His continued involvement when attacks were being carried out distinguished him from the less involved co-defendants and brought him closer to culpability A, but the evidence did not establish a leading role.
4. For a conspiracy, the sentence had to reflect intended harm and could take account of acts carried out pursuant to the conspiracy and the intended harm of further attacks. The court could not safely find from the rap lyrics that a further attack formed part of the conspiracy. The applicant’s own communications showed an intention to cause grave injury, category 2 harm, rather than life-threatening injury, category 1 harm.
5. Applying the guideline categories, the applicant’s culpability was on the cusp of categories 2A and 2B. Aggravating features, including acts carried out pursuant to the conspiracy and intended further attacks, had to be balanced against good character, personal mitigation, age and immaturity. A proportionate sentence was six years’ detention.

The sentence of eight years was quashed and a sentence of six years’ detention in a young offenders’ institution was imposed. The specified 228 days spent on remand and qualifying curfew counted towards the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 7 March 2025, granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the sentence of eight years and substituted six years’ detention.
• Crown Court at Manchester: Following conviction for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, the applicant was sentenced on 1 July 2022 to eight years’ detention in a young offenders’ institution.