R v Christian Wittingham

In assessing alleged disparity between co-offenders’ sentences, the essential question is whether the public would perceive that the appellant had suffered an injustice. The comparison must account for material differences in criminal history, culpability, pleas and sentence structure. A guideline starting point for one offence does not determine the appropriate starting point where several offences are sentenced together and significant aggravating factors apply. A finding of dangerousness and the imposition of an extended sentence may be justified by the nature of the offending, similar previous offending committed while on licence, and a probation assessment of a high risk of serious harm and violent offending.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Southwark to three robberies or attempted robberies on one indictment and a further attempted robbery on another. On 20 June 2025, he received an extended determinate sentence comprising nine years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period for the first indictment, concurrent across those offences, together with a consecutive 18-month sentence for the second indictment.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal after the single judge refused it. He challenged the 12-year pre-credit starting point for the first indictment, alleging undue disparity with his co-offenders and excessive reliance on aggravating factors. He also challenged the finding that he was dangerous and that an extended sentence was necessary. He did not challenge the 18-month sentence, the consecutive structure or the offence categorisation.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court was wholly unpersuaded by either ground.
2. Disparity. The essential test was whether the public, viewing the sentences imposed on the co-offenders, would perceive that the applicant had suffered an injustice. That assessment required comparison of the relevant criminal histories, the seriousness of the offending, plea or trial positions, and the structure of the sentences. The co-offenders’ apparently lower sentences did not create arguable disparity. One had no relevant previous convictions and had been convicted after trial on two counts. The other had previous robberies of lesser seriousness, committed at a younger age and without serious harm. The applicant had committed similar robberies in 2019 and committed the present offences while on licence for them.
3. Starting point. The guideline starting point of four years for a single category B2 robbery did not determine the starting point for three such offences. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess the offences together and to give substantial weight to the planned group offending, targeting of valuable watches, night-time commission, concealed identity, violence, threats and the applicant’s previous convictions. The 12-year starting point was fully justified.
4. Dangerousness and extended sentence. The finding of dangerousness and the conclusion that an extended sentence was necessary were supported by the nature of the current offences, the similar previous robberies, their commission while the applicant was on licence, and the probation report’s assessment that he presented a high risk of causing serious harm to the public and a high risk of violent offending. The absence of evidence that the offenders carried a knife, the absence of really serious harm in the present offences and the applicant’s potential for rehabilitation did not establish an arguable error.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 7 May 2026, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2026] EWCA Crim 675.
2. Single judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Refused the applicant’s initial application for leave to appeal.
3. Crown Court at Southwark — On 20 June 2025, imposed the sentences challenged in the renewed application.