Okunola, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns applications by the Appellant for an extension of time of approximately 920 days and for leave to appeal against sentence following his conviction for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. The Appellant, a 22-year-old man of previous good character, was tried alongside co-defendants before Goose J and a jury over a ten-week period. The co-defendants were convicted of conspiracy to murder or conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, with sentences imposed on 1 July 2022.

Some co-defendants appealed their convictions and sentences, resulting in the Court of Appeal allowing an appeal against conviction for one co-defendant and reducing sentences for others. The Appellant sought a similar reduction based on his role and character, contending the sentencing judge erred in categorising his role and failed to consider the position of black defendants under Sentencing Council guidelines. The prosecution opposed the appeal, asserting the Appellant’s role was more significant and longer lasting.

The factual background involves a gang rivalry between two groups, the M40 gang and the RTD gang, leading to violent incidents including stabbings and a murder in November 2020. The conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm involved planning and carrying out attacks with machetes and other weapons, coordinated through social media chats. The Appellant participated by offering payments for attacks and providing information to facilitate assaults, continuing his involvement after violent acts had commenced.

The sentencing judge found the conspiracy would have resulted in further serious violence if not for police intervention. The judge attributed leading roles to certain co-defendants and grouped the Appellant with others of similar culpability in the conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm, imposing sentences of eight years’ detention for each.

The Appellant had difficulties obtaining legal representation and progressing his appeal within the original time limit, leading to the application for extension of time and leave to appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted an extension of time to appeal against sentence.
2. Whether the Appellant’s sentence was manifestly excessive given his role in the conspiracy.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the Appellant’s culpability and role within the conspiracy.
4. Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly apply Sentencing Council guidelines, including consideration of the position of black defendants.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant’s role in the conspiracy was less significant than that of some co-defendants whose sentences were reduced.
• The prosecution note suggested a lesser role for the Appellant compared to others.
• The sentencing judge miscategorised the Appellant’s role and failed to give due consideration to racial factors as required by Sentencing Council guidelines.
• It was in the interests of justice to extend the time for appeal given difficulties in obtaining legal representation and the disparity in sentences.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The Appellant’s role was significantly greater and extended longer than the roles of certain co-defendants.
• The prosecution note had been misread; it referred to a later period when other co-defendants were no longer involved.
• The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.
• Leave to appeal and extension of time should be refused.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Oni [2025] ECWA Crim 12; [2025] 4 WLR 19	Guidance on appeals against conviction and sentence for co-defendants involved in conspiracy; assessment of roles and sentences.	The Court referred to this precedent to compare the Appellant’s sentence and role with those of co-defendants whose sentences were reduced.
R v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R 849	Authority that the trial judge determines the role of a defendant in a conspiracy for sentencing purposes.	The Court acknowledged that the sentencing judge’s assessment of the Appellant’s role was entitled to deference.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first considered the application for extension of time and found that the Appellant had made consistent efforts to pursue an appeal but faced obstacles in obtaining legal representation. The interests of justice required granting the extension and leave to appeal.

Regarding the sentence, the Court reviewed the sentencing judge’s findings, which were based on extensive trial evidence and a ten-week hearing. The judge had attributed leading roles to certain co-defendants and grouped the Appellant with others of similar culpability for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm.

The Court noted that the judge’s approach effectively treated the Appellant as participating in the actual attacks, thus placing him at a higher culpability level (category 1A). However, the Court found this was an error, as the Appellant’s role was lesser, more consistent with a group activity with culpability B factors.

The Court acknowledged the Appellant’s continuing involvement after violent acts began, distinguishing him somewhat from other co-defendants, but found no evidence he intended life-threatening injuries (category 1 harm). Instead, the Court concluded the Appellant intended grave injury (category 2 harm).

The Court considered the sentencing guidelines and previous appellate decisions, noting that co-defendants with lesser roles received sentences reflecting category 2 culpability and grave injury. The Appellant’s culpability was placed on the cusp between category A and B, warranting a starting point between 5 and 7 years.

Mitigating factors including the Appellant’s good character, educational achievements, work in custody, and young age were properly considered. The Court found a substantial discount appropriate for age and immaturity.

Balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, the Court determined that a proportionate sentence would be six years’ detention rather than eight years originally imposed.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED the extension of time and leave to appeal.

The Court ALLOWED the appeal against sentence, quashing the original sentence of eight years’ detention and substituting a sentence of six years’ detention in a young offenders’ institution.

The time served on remand (228 days, including qualifying curfew days) was ordered to count towards the sentence.

The decision directly affects the Appellant by reducing his custodial sentence but does not establish new precedent beyond the application of existing sentencing principles to the facts.