R v Prosper Matthew

An appeal against sentence is not a re-sentencing exercise. The appellant must identify an error in the sentencing judge’s approach, while allowing for the judge’s proper discretion. Under Sentencing Act 2020, section 230, custody requires the court to conclude that the offending is so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence is justified. An express reference to the relevant imposition guidelines is not essential where the sentencing remarks, read in the round, show that the judge considered the non-custodial option and applied the statutory threshold.

The appellant pleaded guilty to six offences of robbery, assault with intent to rob and theft arising from incidents in January 2023. The Crown Court sentenced him to 19 months’ custody in a Young Offender Institution, taking account of totality, his age and mitigation. He appealed, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to consider the guidelines governing the imposition of community and custodial sentences and had not adequately explained why immediate custody was required. The central issue was whether that omission constituted an error of law.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The court emphasised that this was not a re-sentencing exercise. The issue was whether the sentencing judge had adopted an erroneous approach. The sentencing judge retained a proper discretion as to the sentence imposed.
2. Section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides the statutory threshold for custody. A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the court considers the offending so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified.
3. The sentencing remarks did not expressly refer to the imposition guidelines. That omission did not establish that the guidelines or their underlying principles had been ignored. The judge referred to section 230, had plainly read and considered the detailed pre-sentence report, and had before him the available non-custodial options. The remarks, read in the round, showed that he understood the distinction between custodial and non-custodial sentences.
4. The judge had considered the appellant’s age, remorse, previous good character, supportive references, education and other mitigation, together with the totality of the offending. He was entitled to conclude that the sequence of group robberies, involving serious threats and violence, required immediate custody. The 19-month custodial term was therefore not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the 19-month custodial sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: The appellant was sentenced on 14 November 2025 to 19 months’ custody in a Young Offender Institution.