R v Harry Oluwasina

In sentencing a robbery, harm to the victim and to the business may be reflected in the harm category and starting point. If business harm is taken into account at that stage, it must not be counted again as a statutory aggravating feature. A reduction for the offender’s age when the offence was committed is not followed by an increase merely because the offender is an adult at sentence. Prosecution delay may warrant a modest reduction, and personal mitigation may justify a further reduction. Credit for a guilty plea is applied separately.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery after entering a shop disguised and armed with a knife, taking the shop assistant’s mobile phone and bank card, and stealing cigarettes. The Crown Court at Wolverhampton sentenced him to 46 months’ detention in a young offender institution. He appealed against sentence by leave of the Single Judge, arguing that the starting point was too high and that the sentence should not have been increased because he was an adult at the date of sentence. The central issues were the proper starting point, the treatment of harm, age, delay and personal mitigation, and the resulting sentence.

The appeal was allowed and a sentence of 36 months’ detention in a young offender institution was substituted for the sentence of 46 months.

1. The prosecution and defence had agreed that the offence fell within culpability category A2, with a five-year starting point. The sentencing judge had adopted five years and six months. The Court of Appeal considered that the proper starting point was six years and six months, or 78 months, reflecting the psychological harm to the victim and the financial harm to the shop owner.
2. Where harm to the shop owner is taken into account in fixing the harm category and starting point, it cannot also be treated as a statutory aggravating feature. This would amount to double counting.
3. The one-third reduction applied for the appellant’s age of 17 at the date of the offence was not open to criticism and was, if anything, generous. His age at the date of sentence could not justify increasing the sentence merely because he had since become an adult.
4. Delay attributable to the prosecution rather than the appellant would warrant a further modest reduction. The appellant’s personal mitigation, including his previous good character and other matters identified by the sentencing judge, justified a significant additional reduction. The 15 per cent reduction for his guilty plea was not challenged.
5. The resulting calculation was 78 months, reduced by one-third to 52 months, then reduced for the other mitigation to 43 months. Applying 15 per cent credit for the plea and rounding down produced 36 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 24 April 2026, allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of 36 months’ detention in a young offender institution.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: On 14 August 2025, sentenced the appellant to 46 months’ detention in a young offender institution following his guilty plea to robbery.