R v Wasiim Omar

Hostility based on a personal characteristic may properly inform culpability under a modern sentencing guideline. The same hostility must not be double counted, although additional manifestations may justify an upward adjustment. Where hostility is inherent and integral to the offending, the two-stage approach of fixing sentence without aggravation and then applying a discrete uplift may not sensibly apply. The seriousness and criminality may instead be assessed as a whole. Sentencing courts must consider age and immaturity, recognising that eighteen is not a cliff edge. In a conspiracy forming a campaign of robberies, sentence may reflect the offender’s part in the overall enterprise. A sentence above the range for a single robbery may be justified by the campaign’s gravity.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 17 years and three months’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Birmingham following his conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The conspiracy involved repeated robberies of gay and bisexual men targeted through Grindr. The grounds concerned double counting of hostility based on sexual orientation, the treatment of the applicant’s age and immaturity, his individual role in the conspiracy, and the balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors. The central questions were whether the sentencing judge had erred in applying the statutory hostility aggravation and robbery guideline, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. None of the grounds was reasonably arguable.
2. Hostility and double counting. Section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 required hostility related to sexual orientation to be treated as an aggravating factor. The Guideline on Street Robbery also properly placed offending motivated by, or demonstrating, such hostility within Level A culpability. The judge’s remarks did not make clear how double counting had been avoided, but the substantive culpability assessment was correct. The additional targeting, hateful language and humiliation justified a significant upward adjustment.
3. In R v Kelly & Donnelly [2001] EWCA Crim 170, [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 73, the two-stage approach was not required by the statute and was not sensibly applicable where hostility was inherent and integral to the offending. The approach in R v Graeme Paul Fitzgerald [2003] EWCA Crim 2875, [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. (S,) 436, supported assessing the criminality as a whole. The court doubted the need for a separate statement under section 66(2)(b) where hostility was already incorporated into the culpability determination, because that could invite double counting.
4. Age and role. The judge properly considered the applicant’s age, immaturity and personal circumstances. His eighteenth birthday was not a cliff edge. In sentencing for the conspiracy, the judge was entitled to reflect the campaign of robberies and the applicant’s support for the co-conspirators, while taking account of his non-involvement in some offences. She was not required to attribute every act within each robbery to him individually.
5. Overall sentence. The applicant was directly involved in robberies assessed as Category 1 harm and Level A culpability. He could not avoid Category 1 treatment because other victims suffered less harm. The eight-year starting point and seven-to-12-year range applied to a single robbery after trial. They did not prevent a substantially higher sentence for this grave and prolonged campaign. A sentence of 17 years and three months was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused; the grounds were not reasonably arguable. [2026] EWCA Crim 92
• Crown Court at Birmingham: the applicant was convicted on 17 September 2024 of conspiracy to commit robbery and sentenced on 13 January 2025 to 17 years and three months’ imprisonment.