Matthew, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13 March 2025 at the Crown Court at The City the Appellant changed his plea to guilty to four counts of assault with intent to rob, robbery and theft; various other robbery counts were ordered to lie on the file. On 12 May 2025 at the Crown Court at The City the Appellant pleaded guilty to two further counts of robbery arising from separate incidents. The incidents occurred on 9 January 2023, 15 January 2023 and 27 January 2023. On 14 November 2025 at the Crown Court at The City the Appellant was sentenced to 19 months' custody in a Young Offender Institution, the sentence reflecting the totality of the offending.

Summary of the factual incidents (as set out in the opinion):

• 9 January 2023: Complainant 1 and friends were approached by a group of around 15 young males in The Town centre. The group surrounded and roughly handled them. The Appellant, with others, isolated Complainant 1, grabbed him by the neck, forced him to the ground, struck him multiple times causing a black eye and grazing, and attempted to force him to fight; Complainant 1 later identified the Appellant in an identity parade.
• 15 January 2023: At The Bus Station Complainants 2 and 3 were approached by five males including the Appellant who demanded coats, phones and PINs; the complainants handed over items and were forced to walk home. CCTV and police enquiries linked the Appellant to the group; the Appellant and others later entered a Company A store and stole jackets; the Appellant was detained by store security.
• 27 January 2023: Complainants 4 and 5 were on a bus when the Appellant and others threatened and demanded phones, coats and accessories, with explicit threats of violence and implied threats of knife attack; items including phones, earbuds and coats were taken. Items were later tracked to the co-defendant's address and travel records linked the Appellant to the bus journey.

The Appellant answered "no comment" in interview on 15 February 2023. A detailed Pre-sentence Report was prepared, noting prior good character, remorse and acknowledgement of responsibility but concluding the offending indicated a serious risk of harm and met the threshold for custody. The sentencing judge applied youth sentencing guidance and sentenced on the basis of totality to 19 months' custody after reductions for age and a 20% reduction for late guilty pleas.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in law by failing to consider and apply the imposition guidelines (the legal divide between custodial and non-custodial options) as required by section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and section 230(2)(b) of the Sentencing Code.
2. Whether the absence of an express reference in the sentencing remarks to the imposition guidelines rendered the sentence wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the Appellant's age, mitigation and prospects of rehabilitation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (summarised)

• Attorney Singh accepted the correctness of a 19-month custodial value but argued the judge failed to address imposition guidelines and did not give a structured explanation for immediate custody contrary to section 230(2)(b) of the Sentencing Code.
• It was submitted the case fell within criteria for a suspended sentence: the Appellant had demonstrated realistic prospects of rehabilitation, significant mitigation due to youth and immaturity at the time of offending, stable life and studies, and that immediate custody would cause significant harm to his close family relationship.
• Given the Sentencing Council guideline for children and young people, youth and immaturity should have reduced culpability and supported rehabilitation-focused disposals rather than immediate custody.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of contrary arguments advanced by other parties beyond the judge's sentencing reasoning and the court's analysis.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court framed the appeal narrowly: it was not a re-sentencing exercise but a challenge to whether the judge erred in law by failing to consider and apply imposition guidelines under section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The court reviewed the sentencing remarks and materials the judge had before him (including the Pre-sentence Report and the judge's express references to youth sentencing guidance and section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2020).

The court noted the judge had addressed youth sentencing principles (including citation to R v ZA), considered the Appellant's individual circumstances (remorse, age, education, cessation of associations with co-defendants, supportive references) and the prevalence and seriousness of the sequence of robberies (use of superior numbers, threats, deployment of weapons). The judge explicitly referred to section 230 and recorded that the seriousness of the offending warranted custody; he explained his reasoning on totality and the reductions applied (for age and plea).

The appellate court concluded that although the sentencing remarks did not contain an explicit, formal engagement with the imposition guidelines, the judge had, read as a whole, contemplated the possibility of a non-custodial disposal and had the Probation Report (which canvassed non-custodial options) before him. The absence of express reference did not demonstrate an ignorance of the guidelines. On that basis the court held the judge was entitled to impose immediate custody for the sequence of offences.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect: The sentence of 19 months' custody in a Young Offender Institution imposed on 14 November 2025 stands.

Broader implications: The opinion emphasises that a sentencing judge's failure to use particular formulaic language or to make an express reference to imposition guidelines does not, without more, demonstrate legal error where the judge's reasoning, read in the round, shows consideration of the relevant statutory and guideline material. The opinion does not set out broader novel principles beyond the application of established sentencing discretion in the youth context.