Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.
REGINA v. Yarow
Factual and Procedural Background
On 4th December 2012 in the Central Criminal Court before Judge Joseph QC, the Appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of robbery and three offences of fraud. On 16th January 2013, Judge Morris sentenced the Appellant to five years' detention in a young offender institution on each robbery count and 18 months' detention on each fraud count, all to run concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of five years. Two co-accused, Company A and Company B, pleaded guilty to the same counts and received identical sentences. The Appellant appealed against the sentence by leave of a single judge.
The first robbery occurred on 10th June 2012 in London at around 2 a.m. The victim, a young adult intoxicated after a night out, was approached by the defendants who assaulted him and stole his wallet, debit card, watch, and gold ring. The victim was threatened with a knife and sustained physical injuries and psychological effects. The stolen debit card was subsequently used unsuccessfully to withdraw cash and purchase goods, with the defendants captured on CCTV at a cashpoint.
The second robbery took place approximately ten days later, again in the early morning hours. Another intoxicated victim was assaulted on a bus and robbed of a watch, a silver neck chain of sentimental value, a bank card, and cash. The victim suffered bruising and anxiety. The defendants were identified via CCTV and initially made no comment at interview.
At the time of conviction and sentence, the Appellant was 18 years old but had been just under 18 when the offences were committed. He had prior court appearances for various offences including possession of drugs, theft, and failing to surrender. The other defendants were slightly older.
The sentencing judge categorized the offences as category 2 street robberies under the sentencing guidelines, with a starting point of four years and a range of two to seven years for an adult defendant of good character. The judge did not consider their prior convictions relevant and sentenced all three defendants equally, considering them of similar age and equal involvement.
Aggravating factors identified included group offending, premeditation and planning, offences committed at night, targeting vulnerable intoxicated individuals, the threat of stabbing in the first robbery, and the commission of two offences rather than one. The Appellant’s offences were also committed during the operational period of a youth rehabilitation order imposed two weeks prior to the first robbery.
The judge acknowledged that the sentences would have been appropriate for adults and gave full credit for the guilty pleas and the defendants’ ages. The only issue on appeal concerned whether the Appellant, who was under 18 at the time of the offences, should have received greater credit in sentencing.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to give sufficient credit to the Appellant for being under 18 at the time the offences were committed.
- Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the Appellant’s age and circumstances.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant argued that the judge failed to properly apply the principle established in relevant authorities that being 17 at the time of the offence is a significant factor in sentencing.
- Counsel contended that the judge should have given more credit to the Appellant for his age, reflecting sentencing guidelines applicable to young offenders.
Respondent's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
---|---|---|
Ghafoor [2003] 1 CrAppR (S) 84 | Significance of the offender being 17 at the time of the offence in sentencing considerations. | The court recognized the principle that age under 18 is a powerful factor to consider but not binding; the judge was aware and took it into account. |
Bowker [2008] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 72 | Lower maximum sentences and guidelines for offenders convicted at age 17 compared to those convicted at 18. | The court noted the difference in sentencing ranges but found no error in the judge’s approach given the circumstances. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully considered the argument that the Appellant’s age at the time of the offences should have resulted in a lower sentence. It acknowledged the established legal principle that being under 18 is a significant factor in sentencing, as set out in Ghafoor and Bowker, but emphasized that this principle is not mandatory. The sentencing judge had been made aware of the relevant authorities and had explicitly considered the Appellant’s age and circumstances, including his breach of a youth rehabilitation order and proximity to 18 years old. The judge chose to treat all defendants equally due to their similar ages and equal roles in serious offences. The court held that this was a proper exercise of discretion and that there was no error in principle or manifest excessiveness in the sentence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the Appellant’s appeal against sentence.
The direct effect of this ruling is that the original sentence of five years’ detention in a young offender institution stands. The court did not establish any new precedent but reaffirmed that while the age of an offender under 18 is a powerful factor in sentencing, it is not determinative and must be considered in the context of the individual circumstances and seriousness of the offences.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
Comments