R v Silas Agwo

In an appeal against sentence, a robbery must be placed in the correct harm and culpability categories. Severe psychological harm requires evidence sufficient to establish that level. Where that evidence is absent and no physical injury is shown, category 2 may be appropriate even though production of a knife places culpability in category A.

Age 18 does not mark a sudden change in maturity. Age, developmental immaturity and personal mitigation must be reflected in sentence. Appellate review of dangerousness is ordinarily restrained, but the court may re-evaluate where the sentencing judge lacked trial advantage and gave exiguous reasons. An extended licence must be necessary and sufficient to protect the public.

The appellant, aged 18, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Birmingham to two robberies, three attempted robberies and one further robbery committed with a co-accused over three to four weeks. Some offences involved threats to use a knife against young victims.

On 28 April 2025, HHJ Henderson imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years and four months for the lead offence, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences. The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the robbery guideline had been misapplied, that the dangerousness criteria were not met, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The central issues were the correct harm category, whether an extended sentence was justified, and the appropriate custodial and extended licence periods.

Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the extended determinate sentence imposed on count 1 of indictment 20BW1046125 and substituted a seven-year extended sentence. The other sentences remained undisturbed.

1. The lead offence had been mis-categorised under the robbery guideline. The evidence did not establish severe psychological harm, and there were no physical injuries. The harm therefore fell within category 2. The production of a knife to threaten violence placed culpability in category A. For an adult offender, category 2A had a starting point of five years and a range of four to eight years.
2. An offender’s chronological age of 18 did not involve a sudden change in maturity. The appellant’s lower developmental age, difficult upbringing, personal mitigation and age required an appropriate reduction. That reduction had to be balanced against his previous offending and the concurrent sentences for five other offences committed against young victims over approximately four weeks.
3. For an adult offender, the appropriate sentence for the lead offence after trial but before mitigation was approximately eight years. After mitigation, the overall sentence was six years. Credit for the guilty plea produced an appropriate custodial term of four years, satisfying the four-year term condition under section 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
4. Ordinarily, appellate intervention in an assessment of dangerousness or an extended-sentence decision was limited to an error of principle or a decision outside the reasonable range, as illustrated by R v Leighton Williams [2024] EWCA Crim 686. Here, the sentencing judge had not tried the case and had given exiguous reasons, having regard to the appellant’s age, mitigation and the seriousness of the sentence. The court therefore re-evaluated dangerousness.
5. There was a significant risk of serious harm to the public from further specified offences. Relevant factors were the threatened use of a dangerous knife against lone young persons, the pattern and duration of the offending, the appellant’s apparent pleasure in offending as well as gain, and the pre-sentence report. A determinate sentence would not sufficiently protect the public. A three-year extended licence was necessary and sufficient for that purpose.

The substituted sentence was therefore four years’ custody followed by three years on extended licence. To that extent only, the appeal was allowed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 614, the appeal against sentence was allowed to the limited extent that the extended determinate sentence on count 1 of indictment 20BW1046125 was quashed and replaced by a seven-year extended sentence.
2. Crown Court at Birmingham: On 28 April 2025, HHJ Henderson imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years and four months for the lead offence, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.