R v YGW

When sentencing a child or young person for robbery, immediate custody may be justified where there is very significant force, a threat or use of a bladed article or produced imitation firearm, or significant physical or psychological harm. If the offence is so serious that only custody is appropriate, the adult guideline may be used with a reduction of between 33 and 50 per cent. A youth rehabilitation order remains an available option, but may be rejected after considering all non-custodial alternatives. Where adult custody would be eight or ten years, a non-custodial sentence for a child will rarely be appropriate, and a custodial term below 50 per cent of the adult term will be uncommon.

YGW, aged 15 years and 5 months when the offences were committed, participated with six co-defendants in two robberies against schoolboys. The offending involved group intimidation, masks, a knife, imitation firearms, significant force and serious injury. On 14 November 2025, HHJ Peter Cooke sentenced him to 45 months’ detention. He applied for permission to appeal against sentence, arguing that a youth rehabilitation order with supervision and surveillance was appropriate, that his role was subordinate, and that his mitigation and previous good character had not been sufficiently reflected. The central issues were whether immediate custody was justified and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Custody under the robbery guideline. The sentencing guidelines for children and young people focus on rehabilitation, but begin with the seriousness of the offence. A custodial sentence or a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and training may be justified where there is very significant force, a threat or use of a bladed article or a produced imitation firearm, or significant physical or psychological harm. If only custody is appropriate, the adult guideline may be used with a reduction of between 33 and 50 per cent.
2. All three potential custody factors were present in the first robbery. The victim suffered significant force and a fractured eye socket. Knives and an imitation firearm were produced. The victim also suffered significant psychological harm. The offending had further aggravating features, including masks, group intimidation, targeting valuable goods and filming the attack. The adult starting point for the first robbery could properly have exceeded ten years, with a further adult sentence required for the second robbery subject to totality.
3. The judge expressly considered a youth rehabilitation order and other alternatives to custody. It was open to him to conclude that the offences were so serious that only immediate detention was appropriate. The availability of a non-custodial sentence therefore did not disclose an error of principle.
4. The judge had regard to YGW’s role. A participant who helped to outnumber and intimidate a vulnerable victim was not merely passive, particularly where he struck the victim and was later found with the imitation firearm and a knife. Although the judge did not expressly identify every matter of mitigation, the 50 per cent reduction from the notional adult term was substantial and could only have reflected YGW’s age, role and available mitigation. The guilty plea attracted a further reduction.
5. Where an offence warrants adult custody of eight or ten years, a non-custodial sentence for a child will rarely be appropriate, and a custodial term below 50 per cent of the adult term will be uncommon. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2026] EWCA Crim 1063 : the application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: on 14 November 2025, HHJ Peter Cooke sentenced YGW to a total of 45 months’ detention for two robberies.