Quartey, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer a sentence considered to be unduly lenient. The Defendant, aged 18 at the time of offending, pleaded guilty to three offences of robbery committed in The City on a specified date in 2023. The Defendant was sentenced to a total custodial term suspended for 24 months, with unpaid work and rehabilitation requirements.

The robberies involved the Defendant and others traveling from North London to The City, wearing balaclavas and committing street robberies in the dark. The victims included an 18-year-old student, a 15-year-old minor (anonymized), and a 20-year-old adult, each subjected to threats and theft of phones, cash, and personal items. The Defendant was alleged to have played a leading role but also showed remorse by returning one victim's phone and expressing regret.

After arrest and initial court appearances, the Defendant entered guilty pleas at a Pre Trial Preliminary Hearing. A Newton hearing was directed but resolved by acceptance of key facts by the Defendant, leading to sentencing. The Defendant had a prior conviction for possession of a bladed article committed shortly before turning 18 and during the currency of a referral order.

The sentencing judge categorized the offences with a starting point of four years for the most serious offence, increased for totality, then reduced for mitigation including age, remorse, and other factors. The final sentence was 24 months custody suspended for 24 months, with additional requirements.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total sentence imposed was unduly lenient, specifically regarding the adequacy of the uplift for multiple counts under the principle of totality.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying reductions for the Defendant’s age and mitigation, including possible double counting of mitigating factors.
3. Whether the suspension of the sentence was properly applied in accordance with sentencing guidelines.
4. Whether, having found the sentence unduly lenient, the appellate court should exercise its discretion to increase the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The total sentence was unduly lenient because the judge failed to impose an adequate uplift for the additional counts when applying the totality principle.
• The judge allowed too large a reduction for the Defendant’s age and mitigation.
• The judge erred by applying an additional reduction for matters already accounted for earlier in sentencing.
• The sentence was suspended without proper application of the relevant imposition guideline.

Appellee's Arguments

• The judge’s approach to sentencing was permissible within judicial discretion.
• There was significant and important mitigation, including genuine remorse and vulnerability.
• The sentence was properly suspended.
• The Defendant was complying well with the suspended sentence order and rehabilitation activities.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the starting point of four years for the lead offence under Category 2B, reflecting medium culpability involving a threat of violence by a weapon not produced. The court recognized the need to uplift the sentence to account for the additional offences committed in close temporal proximity and aggregated the criminality accordingly.

The court acknowledged important mitigating factors, including the Defendant’s exploitation by others, young age, genuine remorse (both during and after the offences), vulnerability, and serious injuries sustained while in custody. The Defendant’s progress through rehabilitation and support services was also considered.

Despite these mitigating factors, the court concluded that the sentence imposed—24 months suspended custody—was too low and thus unduly lenient. The court estimated a sentence closer to 30 months would be more appropriate after proper application of sentencing principles.

However, the court exercised its discretion not to increase the sentence after considering further evidence of the Defendant’s positive progress and rehabilitation efforts. The discretion to increase a sentence found unduly lenient is not automatic and must be exercised judiciously.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave for the reference and found the sentence to be unduly lenient. However, exercising its discretion, the court decided not to increase the sentence.

The direct effect is that the original sentence remains in place. No new precedent was established by this decision. The ruling underscores the court’s careful balancing of sentencing principles with the rehabilitative progress of the Defendant when considering whether to increase an unduly lenient sentence.