R v Youssefi [2025] EWCA Crim 899: The Duty to “Step Back” Under the Totality Guideline When Imposing Consecutive Sentences

1. Introduction

The decision in R v Youssefi [2025] EWCA Crim 899 is a significant Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) judgment on the proper application of the Sentencing Council’s Totality Guideline when sentencing for multiple offences, particularly where consecutive sentences are imposed.

Although the case arises out of a series of pharmacy robberies committed to obtain Oxycodone, the real importance of the decision lies not in the substantive offence of robbery but in the Court of Appeal’s sharp restatement of the “step back” requirement under the totality principle. The judgment makes clear that:

It is an error in principle for a sentencing judge to fail explicitly to test the overall sentence against the requirement that the total term be “just and proportionate”.
The “internal architecture” of the sentence (consecutive vs. concurrent) is subordinate to that overall requirement.
Simply aggregating properly-calculated individual sentences will almost never suffice where consecutive sentences are imposed for similar or related offending.

The Court allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing a total term of 12 years’ imprisonment to 10 years, not because any individual sentence was unlawful or outside guideline, but because totality had not been properly engaged with as a distinct and final step.

2. Background and Key Facts

2.1 The offending

The appellant, aged 42, committed three primary offences of robbery/attempted robbery, each linked to his dependency on prescribed Oxycodone, supported by two associated bladed article offences:

9 May 2022 – Day Lewis Pharmacy, Hastings
The appellant:
- Entered the pharmacy masked, hood up, wearing gloves.
- Brandished a 14-inch knife.
- Went behind the counter and demanded Oxycodone.
- Obtained one box of Oxycodone and left after about three minutes.
Blood at the scene matched his DNA. He initially lied in interview and offered a false alibi.
27 April 2024 (morning) – Boots Pharmacy, Pevensey Bay (attempted robbery and bladed article):
- Again partially disguised with face covering, cap and hood.
- Repeatedly demanded Oxycodone, threatening: “Give me Oxycodone or I will hurt someone.”
- Produced a knife from his jacket.
- A 15-year-old boy, warned that the appellant had a knife, bravely intervened to calm him.
- The appellant left, re-entered via a side door, pushed a member of staff (causing bruising and fear for life), and continued screaming for “those drugs”.
- He again produced a knife, telling the boy: “Back away. I need these meds.”
- He left without obtaining medication.
27 April 2024 (later the same day) – Kamsons Pharmacy, Eastbourne (robbery):
- Again masked, gloved, hood up.
- Went behind the counter, demanding Oxycodone.
- Threatened, “I’ve got a knife. Do you want a knife?” while gesturing to his trousers (no knife seen).
- Staff, understandably fearful, handed over Oxycodone; he left saying “sorry”.

ANPR evidence placed his car near both Pevensey Bay and Eastbourne at the relevant times. When arrested the next day (28 April 2024), police recovered substantial quantities of Oxycodone from his car and home. He made no comment in interview.

2.2 Personal background and antecedents

The appellant suffered a severe accident involving a fall from a roof, leading to:

Amputation of one leg.
Metal rods inserted into his remaining leg and into his back.
Chronic pain, treated with Oxycodone, a highly addictive semi-synthetic opioid.

The pre-sentence reports recorded that his dependency on prescribed Oxycodone was a significant driver of the offending, and that on the offending dates he had run out of medication.

He had two prior convictions for four offences (1999–2009). Notably, in 1999 he had received 6 months’ imprisonment for robbery and attempted robbery: a relevant aggravating feature, though relatively old.

2.3 Procedural history

9 May 2022 robbery and bladed article: Guilty pleas entered on 24 April 2024 at Lewes Crown Court (HHJ Mooney).
27 April 2024 attempted robbery, robbery and bladed article: Guilty pleas entered on 28 May 2024 (same court, HHJ Mooney).

On 5 August 2024, at Lewes Crown Court before Recorder John Hardy KC, he was sentenced as follows:

Robbery (9 May 2022): 4 years.
Attempted robbery (27 April 2024): 4 years.
Robbery (27 April 2024): 4 years.
Bladed article offences (two counts): 1 year each, concurrent with each other and concurrent to the robbery sentences.

The judge ordered the three robbery/attempted robbery terms to run consecutively, creating a total of 12 years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed with leave of the single judge, contending that the total sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive due to misapplication of the Totality Guideline.

3. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal accepted that:

The sentencing judge correctly applied the offence-specific guideline for each robbery/attempted robbery: each properly assessed as Culpability A (high) and Category 2 harm.
The determination that the robbery-related offences merited consecutive sentences was within the proper range of discretion.

However, the Court held that:

The judge failed to complete the necessary third stage under the Totality Guideline: he did not “step back” to test whether the overall aggregate sentence of 12 years was “just and proportionate”.
This failure amounted to an error in principle.
Had the judge carried out that totality review, he would have arrived at a lower overall sentence.

Accordingly, the Court:

Quashed the 4-year sentence for the May 2022 robbery and substituted 3 years’ imprisonment (still consecutive).
Quashed the 4-year sentence for the attempted robbery on 27 April 2024 and substituted 3 years’ imprisonment (still consecutive).
Left intact the 4-year sentence for the later robbery on 27 April 2024, and the concurrent one-year terms for the bladed article offences.

The revised structure is:

Robbery (9 May 2022): 3 years (Culpability A, Harm 2).
Attempted robbery (27 April 2024): 3 years (Culpability A, Harm 2).
Robbery (27 April 2024): 4 years (Culpability A, Harm 2).
Bladed articles: 1 year each, concurrent with each other and concurrent to the above.

All three principal terms remain consecutive, but at a lower level, producing a revised total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, which the Court held to be the “overall just and proportionate sentence for the offending as a whole”.

4. Detailed Analysis

4.1 The legal framework: Totality and guidelines

The key legal scaffold for the judgment is the Sentencing Council’s Totality Guideline for multiple offences, which the Court quotes and applies. Under section 125 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, courts must follow relevant sentencing guidelines unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

The Totality Guideline, as recited in the judgment, emphasises:

“When sentencing for more than one offence, the overriding principle of totality is that all the sentences should:

reflect all of the offending behaviour with reference to overall harm and culpability, together with the aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offences and those personal to the offender; and

be just and proportionate.”

The General Approach (for determinate sentences) is framed as a three-step process:

Consider the sentence for each individual offence, using the offence-specific guidelines.
Decide whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive (or a mix).
Test the overall sentence against the requirement that the total sentence is just and proportionate to the offending as a whole.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge complied with stages (1) and (2) but erred by failing on stage (3): the necessary “stepping back” to assess the aggregate term.

4.2 No prior authorities cited, but clear reliance on the Totality Guideline

Notably, the judgment does not cite specific previous Court of Appeal authorities by name. The principal “precedent” in play is the Sentencing Council’s Totality Guideline itself, though that document synthesises and reflects existing appellate case law on the totality principle.

In substance, the Court’s approach is entirely consistent with long-standing Court of Appeal jurisprudence which requires a sentencing judge, having calculated individual sentences and decided concurrency/consecutivity, to take a “last look” at the overall figure to ensure it is not disproportionate or crushing. Youssefi is therefore best seen as a strong and focused reaffirmation of that requirement, particularly in the context of multiple serious robberies.

4.3 Offence-specific guideline: Robbery as Culpability A, Harm Category 2

Robbery sentencing is governed by the Sentencing Council’s Robbery Guideline. The Court agreed that the judge correctly placed each of the three principal offences at:

Culpability A (high culpability) – because of factors such as:
- Use and production of a knife.
- Facial covering and disguise.
- Threats of serious harm (“I will hurt someone”).
Harm Category 2 – reflecting:
- Serious psychological harm to multiple victims, some terrified and fearing they would die.
- An actual physical injury (bruise) to one staff member.

For commercial robberies of this seriousness (Culpability A, Harm 2), the guideline provides:

Starting point: 5 years’ custody.
Range: 4–8 years’ custody.

The judge’s notional pre-mitigation assessments were:

9 May 2022 robbery: 6 years after trial, reduced to 5.5 years for mitigation.
27 April 2024 attempted robbery: 8 years after trial, reduced to 6 years for mitigation.
The second 27 April 2024 robbery: treated “by the same mathematical process” – logically around a similar bracket.

He then applied a 25% discount for his guilty pleas (properly acknowledged by the Court of Appeal) and made a further modest adjustment for his positive efforts in custody, arriving at 4 years for each of the three primary offences.

The Court of Appeal did not quarrel with any of this as a matter of application of the Robbery Guideline. The individual 4-year sentences were all within the appropriate range.

4.4 The judge’s treatment of totality – where did it go wrong?

The sentencing judge was alive to some features relevant to totality:

He ordered the two bladed article sentences to be concurrent, to avoid “double counting” the use of a knife (already captured in placing the robberies into Culpability A).
He recognised the existence of separate incidents across different dates and different victims.

However, as the Court emphasised, that was not enough. The judge:

Did not expressly evaluate whether 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 years was a just and proportionate reflection of the totality of the offending.
Did not consider whether individual sentences could be proportionately reduced when imposed consecutively, as the Totality Guideline suggests for similar offence types.
Did not articulate any “step back” reasoning at the end of the sentencing exercise, before turning to ancillary matters.

The Court notes the Totality Guideline’s warning:

“If consecutive, it is usually impossible to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence simply by adding together notional single sentences.”

This is the heart of the error. The judge constrained himself by thinking he “could not avoid passing consecutive sentences”, and then simply stacked three individually justified sentences. He did not question whether the cumulative effect (12 years) overshot the necessary mark.

4.5 The Court’s re-emphasis on the “step back” requirement

The Court of Appeal’s critical passages are those in which it restates the structure of the sentencing process and the primacy of the totality test:

The decision-making must follow a consequential route:
1. Identify individual sentences (guideline-based).
2. Decide concurrency/consecutivity.
3. Only then step back and test the overall sentence for justice and proportionality.
The “internal architecture” of the sentence (how much is concurrent vs consecutive) is subservient to achieving a just and proportionate total sentence.
The “step back” must be the final step before dealing with ancillary orders.

The Court concludes (para 29) that the judge was “wrong in principle in failing to engage with the requirement within the Totality guidelines, to test the overall sentence against the requirement that the total sentence was just and proportionate for the offending as a whole”.

Stepping back itself, the Court holds that a just aggregate term would have been less than 12 years, and re-structures the sentence accordingly.

4.6 How should totality have been applied here?

The Totality Guideline gives two principal approaches where there are several similar offences at a similar level of seriousness:

(a) Proportionately reduce all sentences and run them consecutively
That is, adjust each individual sentence downward when making them consecutive, staying within the category range.
(b) Identify a “lead” or “principal” offence and reduce the remainder
The lead offence carries a clearly identified sentence; the remaining offences are given shorter, proportionately reduced consecutive terms.

The Court of Appeal effectively adopts the second approach:

It leaves the sentence for the later 27 April 2024 robbery at 4 years – treating it implicitly as the most serious or “anchor” offence.
It reduces the other two (the earlier May 2022 robbery and the April 2024 attempted robbery) to 3 years each.

This reconfiguration:

Respects the serious nature of each incident, all involving fear, threats and/or a knife.
Acknowledges the escalating pattern (two further offences committed while on bail for the first robbery).
Still reflects the multiplicity of victims and separate episodes by retaining consecutivity.
Nonetheless moderates the cumulative impact so as to avoid a sentence that is greater than necessary to reflect overall criminality.

The Court thereby crystallises an important practical message: where there are several similar serious offences, it will often be appropriate to keep them consecutive but at individually moderated levels, rather than repeating the full guideline outcome for each and simply adding them up.

4.7 Mitigation: disability, medical addiction and personal progress

The sentencing judge, endorsed by the Court of Appeal, gave proper weight to:

The appellant’s catastrophic physical injuries and permanent disability.
The fact that his addiction arose from prescribed Oxycodone for genuine pain (an iatrogenic addiction, not recreational use).
Evidence that he was undertaking “good work” in prison.

The judge’s starting points for each robbery (6 years, 8 years, then mitigated downward) demonstrate that this mitigation was already factored in at the individual-sentence level, prior to plea reduction. The Court of Appeal did not find that the mitigation had been undervalued in the first instance; rather, the problem was the absence of a separate totality check.

That said, the Court’s willingness to reduce the overall sentence by two years can also be read as an implicit recognition that:

Where addiction is directly linked to medical treatment and disability, there is a legitimate limit to how far deterrence and retribution should drive sentence length.
Public protection and seriousness of the offences remain paramount, but must still be balanced with compassion and proportionality.

4.8 Public protection, seriousness and deterrence

Despite reducing the total term, the Court affirmed the gravity of the offending:

Multiple robberies against public-facing pharmacy staff.
Use and brandishing of a knife (or explicit threats of a knife) in public settings.
Psychological trauma and legitimate terror experienced by victims.
Reoffending within three days of being bailed for the earlier robbery.
A previous conviction for robbery, albeit historic.

The approval of the individual categorisations (Culpability A, Harm 2) and the retention of consecutive terms strongly signal that:

Even where the motivation is drug dependency, robberies of this kind will attract substantial custodial sentences.
The presence of a knife—actually produced or credibly threatened—heavily aggravates robbery, justifying high-cusp guideline sentences.

The sentence after revision – 10 years – remains a long term of imprisonment. The case should not be read as softening the response to armed robbery, but as ensuring that aggregation across multiple offences is done in a principled and transparent way.

5. Impact and Significance for Future Cases

5.1 Clarifying the mandatory nature of the “step back” totality check

The most important doctrinal impact of Youssefi is its unambiguous insistence that the third stage of the Totality Guideline is not optional. Sentencing judges must:

Expressly consider whether the final overall term is just and proportionate.
Be prepared, where necessary, to reduce some or all of the individual sentences to achieve a proportionate aggregate.

Failure to perform or articulate that step is now firmly characterised as an error in principle, opening the door to appellate intervention, even where each individual sentence is in itself unimpeachable.

5.2 Guidance on structuring multiple robbery sentences

For robbery and similar serious offences, the case offers concrete guidance:

Where there are multiple comparable robberies (e.g. commercial premises, similar modus, similar harm and culpability), courts should consider:
- Either reducing each individual sentence proportionately; or
- Identifying a lead offence with the full guideline sentence, and imposing reduced consecutive terms for the remainder.
Simply multiplying the guideline outcome by the number of offences is disapproved (absent exceptional circumstances).

Defence counsel can now more confidently argue that in cases of stringed robberies (especially where drugs or addiction are drivers) a modest but meaningful totality reduction from the arithmetical aggregate is not only permissible but required.

5.3 Emphasis on explanation and transparency

The Court stresses that the totality assessment must be part of a structured, explained process:

Judges should be explicit in sentencing remarks about:
- The notional sentences before totality.
- The chosen concurrency/consecutivity structure.
- The consideration of totality and any adjustments made.
This protects against appeals and promotes public confidence in the sentencing process.

5.4 Relevance to other offence types

Although the case concerns robberies, the totality reasoning is applicable across the criminal spectrum:

Serious violence, domestic abuse, or sexual offences where there are multiple counts.
Fraud or dishonesty cases involving numerous discrete episodes.
Offending in series (e.g. burglary sprees, repeated public order incidents).

Where there are “similar offence types or offences of a similar level of severity” the Court’s approach – moderate each term and/or identify a lead offence – becomes a readily transferable template.

6. Complex Concepts Explained

6.1 Robbery and attempted robbery

Robbery (Theft Act 1968, s.8) occurs where:
- A person steals; and
- Immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts/threatens to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
Attempted robbery is an attempt (under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981) to commit robbery, where the defendant has the intent to rob and does an act that is “more than merely preparatory” to the commission of the robbery, but no completed theft occurs.

6.2 “Having an article with a blade or point”

This is the familiar offence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: having a bladed or sharply pointed article in a public place without good reason or lawful authority. In Youssefi the pharmacies were public places, and the knives were plainly used for criminal purposes, so no defence arose.

6.3 Culpability and Harm Categories

Sentencing guidelines for many offences, including robbery, use a grid combining:

Culpability (how blameworthy the offender’s conduct is), ranging from:
- A – High culpability (e.g. use of weapons, planning, leading role);
- down to D – Lesser culpability.
Harm (what damage or risk the offence caused), which for robbery takes into account both:
- Actual physical and psychological harm; and
- Risk of serious harm, even if not realised.

Each combination (e.g. Culpability A / Harm 2) correlates to a guideline starting point and a sentence range, to be adjusted for aggravating and mitigating factors.

6.4 Totality principle

The totality principle is a general common law and guideline-based principle requiring that:

When sentencing for multiple offences, the court looks at the whole picture, not just each offence in isolation.
The final sentence must reflect the overall seriousness of the offending but must not be excessive compared with the total criminality.
It guards against the danger that a series of individually justified sentences, when added together, produce a sentence that is disproportionate or crushing.

In practice, it operates through:

Decisions on whether sentences should be concurrent (served at the same time) or consecutive (served one after another).
Moderating individual sentences where consecutive terms are imposed for similar offences.

6.5 Concurrent vs consecutive sentences

Concurrent sentences:
- Run at the same time.
- The longest individual term effectively controls the total sentence.
- Often used where offences arise out of the same incident or are very closely connected.
Consecutive sentences:
- Are served back-to-back.
- The total sentence is the sum of the consecutive terms (subject to totality adjustment).
- Often used where:
  - Offences are distinct incidents; or
  - There are different victims; or
  - The same offence is repeated over time.

In Youssefi, the Court accepted that the three robbery-related offences, committed on separate dates and in separate venues against different victims, properly attracted consecutive sentences, but insisted on moderating their length for totality.

6.6 “Wrong in principle” and “manifestly excessive”

On sentence appeals, the Court of Appeal generally interferes only where:

The sentence is wrong in principle – e.g. the judge:
- Misapplied or ignored a relevant guideline.
- Took into account irrelevant factors or omitted obviously relevant ones.
Or the sentence is manifestly excessive – so far outside the range of reasonable responses to the facts that it cannot stand.

Here, the Court’s primary finding was that the sentence was wrong in principle because of the failure to apply the third stage of the Totality Guideline. The fact that the total was also implicitly judged to be too high (12 vs 10 years) flows from that error.

6.7 Double counting

“Double counting” occurs when the same aggravating feature is used more than once to increase the sentence, for example:

Using the presence of a knife both:
- To move the robbery into a higher culpability category; and
- To justify an uplift to an associated knife offence sentence.

The sentencing judge avoided this by:

Using the knife to elevate the robbery offences to Culpability A; but
Then ordering the bladed article sentences to be concurrent, so that they did not increase the total term beyond the level set for the robberies.

The Court of Appeal endorsed that approach.

7. Conclusion: Key Takeaways

R v Youssefi is best understood as a robust and practical reaffirmation of the totality principle and the structured approach mandated by the Sentencing Council’s Totality Guideline. Its main contributions can be distilled as follows:

The “step back” is mandatory
Judges must, after fixing individual sentences and deciding on concurrency/consecutivity, explicitly test the overall sentence to see if it is just and proportionate. Skipping this step is an error in principle.
Internal architecture is subordinate to totality
The question is not primarily whether terms are concurrent or consecutive, but whether the ultimate total sentence fairly reflects the total criminality. Structure serves outcome, not the other way round.
Similar multiple offences call for moderated consecutive terms
For a string of similar offences (here, pharmacy robberies driven by the same addiction), proportional reduction of individual consecutive terms or identification of a clear lead offence is indicated. Pure arithmetic aggregation is generally wrong.
The seriousness of armed robbery remains heavily punished
Even after allowing the appeal, the resulting sentence – 10 years – underlines that commercial robberies involving knives, fear and injury will be met with very significant custodial terms, even when addiction and disability are in play.
Mitigation and personal circumstances must still be accommodated within totality
Where offenders suffer from grave injuries and medically induced addictions, courts should reflect those circumstances not only within each individual sentence but also, where appropriate, by moderating the overall aggregate.

In practice, Youssefi furnishes a clear and citation-ready authority to deploy in any multi-count sentencing exercise where the sentencer has failed to articulate a totality review, or where the aggregate term appears to be little more than an arithmetic sum of guideline sentences. It thus occupies an important place in the continuing refinement of structured, principled sentencing in England and Wales.