Revisiting Group Conspiracy Sentencing: Clarifying Culpability and Mitigation in Conspiracies

Introduction

The Judgment in Okunola, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 350) presents a significant development in the sentencing landscape for complex group conspiracies. In this case before the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Mr Azim Okunola – a 22-year-old with previously good character – challenged his 8‐year detention sentence arising from his involvement in a conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm. This case is set against a background of serious violent incidents linked to gang rivalries, where multiple defendants were implicated in a coordinated plan involving premeditated attacks using dangerous weapons such as machetes. Mr Okunola’s appeal raised critical issues regarding the correct assessment of his role within the conspiracy, alleged mis-categorization, and whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered mitigating factors such as age, ongoing personal circumstances, and his comparative role relative to other conspirators. Notably, the appeal was accompanied by an application for an extension of time of 920 days—a point that underscored the difficulties in securing legal representation—that the court ultimately found to be in the interests of justice.

Summary of the Judgment

The judgment dealt primarily with two interconnected matters. First, the extension of time entered in the appeal process was granted. The court recognised the challenges faced by Mr Okunola in progressing his appeal, especially in comparison with other co-defendants who had benefited from sentence reductions. Second, and more importantly, the appellate court scrutinised the sentencing rationale for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm, where Mr Okunola’s role was deemed by the trial judge to be similar to that of other co-defendants. However, on appeal, the court held that the judge’s approach had unduly equated Mr Okunola’s participation in planning and continued engagement in the conspiracy with the actual execution of attacks. The court clarified that Mr Okunola’s involvement should be carefully differentiated on the basis of his level of culpability. It was determined that his actions, while still serious, merited a lower custodial term – reducing his sentence from 8 to 6 years in a young offenders’ institution, with time served on remand being credited.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced key precedents that guided the determination of both culpability and the appropriate sentencing range. Notably, the case of R v Oni [2025] ECWA Crim 12; [2025] 4 WLR 19 provided the backdrop for comparisons, as similar appeals by co-defendants Mr Savi and Mr Okoya had resulted in reduced sentences. Further, the court cited the established principles from R v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R 849, emphasizing that it is primarily for the trial judge to assess the exact role of each defendant in a conspiracy. These precedents were fundamental in underscoring that while the planning phase was an integral part of conspiracy, the escalation to actual violent conduct should be distinctly considered, thus influencing how comparative roles were assessed.

Legal Reasoning

The appellate court’s legal reasoning was primarily centered on a nuanced evaluation of the roles within a group conspiracy. The court acknowledged that the trial judge had correctly determined a general framework for sentencing by referencing the Assault guidelines for offences under section 18 of the relevant statutory provisions. However, it was held that in Mr Okunola’s case the application of these guidelines failed to differentiate between varying degrees of active participation and mere ancillary involvement in the conspiracy. Specifically, the court noted that Mr Okunola's continued involvement – particularly his communications evidencing support for planned attacks – did not amount to a leading role commensurate with those who orchestrated or directly carried out violent attacks.

The reasoning also placed significant weight on the concept of "culpability factors." The judgment carefully distinguished between culpability A (implying a leading role with planning and execution) and culpability B (suggestive of a lesser, more contributory role). Given the evidence from the Telegram chat and subsequent actions, the court concluded that Mr Okunola straddled the line between these categories. His role, characterised by less direct involvement in the violent acts compared to others, should thereby command a less severe sentence. This refined understanding of individual culpability reflects an evolution in judicial assessment which takes into account the dynamic and often complex roles in group criminal activities.

Impact on Future Cases

This judgment is poised to have a significant impact on the sentencing of cases involving conspiracy and group criminal behaviour. First, it establishes a clear precedent that courts must differentiate between the planning stages and the execution phases of a conspiracy when allocating culpability. Second, by recognising the importance of distinguishing among different levels of active participation, this case is likely to encourage future appellate courts to reassess sentences where there is a misalignment between a defendant’s contribution to a crime and the severity of the punishment imposed.

Furthermore, the granting of an extended time for appeal underlines that access to justice remains a paramount concern—particularly in complex litigation where obtaining effective legal representation may be challenging. Future litigants in similar contexts may reference this judgment to argue for extensions where procedural hurdles have impeded timely appeal submissions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several complex legal principles are distilled in this judgment:

Group Conspiracy Culpability: In group conspiracies, not all participants are equally liable. The distinction is made between those who plan and orchestrate the crime (culpability A) and those who play a secondary or supporting role (culpability B). This case reinforces the idea that the sentencing must reflect these differences.
Assault Guidelines and Culpability Categories: The sentencing guidelines for grievous bodily harm are divided into categories, which outline different starting points and ranges based on the severity and planning involved. The judgment clarifies that while a higher category generally means a more severe sentence, a flexible, case-specific analysis is necessary.
Extension of Time for Appeal: The legal principle that procedural hurdles, such as difficulties in obtaining legal representation, can justify extensions in time limits, is crucial to ensuring fair access to justice.

Conclusion

The appellate judgment in Okunola, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 350) sets an important legal precedent by underscoring the need for a differentiated approach in assessing individual roles within group conspiracies. It reiterates that while involvement in contrived criminal plans is serious, the specific nature and degree of participation must be meticulously evaluated. The decision to quash the original 8-year sentence in favour of a 6-year term, taking into account mitigating factors such as age, background, and the nuanced role played by Mr Okunola, is a landmark ruling in reconciling the doctrines of collective criminality and individualized sentencing.

Legal practitioners and future litigants may view this case as a clarion call for precision in sentencing. It not only refines the boundaries of culpability within group offenses but also ensures that the legal system adapts to the complexities of modern criminal conspiracies. Thus, this Judgment will likely serve as a guiding precedent in cases where the interplay between group dynamics and individual actions requires careful judicial dissection.