Agwo, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 7 January 2025 the Appellant (aged 18 at the time) pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery on indictment 20BW2556224. On 6 March 2025 he pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted robbery and one count of robbery on indictment 20BW1046125. On 28 April 2025 before Judge Henderson the Appellant was sentenced: an extended determinate sentence under section 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020 of nine years four months for one offence (custodial term five years four months and an extended licence period of four years); concurrent terms of two years' detention in a young offender institution for the two robberies on 6224; and concurrent terms of three years' detention in a young offender institution for the other offences on 6125. The Appellant appealed by leave.

The offences consisted of a series of street robberies or attempted robberies in the centre of The City over a period of about three to four weeks, sometimes involving production or threatened use of a knife. A co-accused pleaded guilty to the same offences. Victim personal statements describe serious effects. The pre-sentence report recorded two prior convictions, an existing youth rehabilitation order running until 31 January 2027, low income reported by the Appellant, a difficult upbringing (mother deceased in childhood; lack of contact with father; moves between multiple addresses) and an assessment that the Appellant posed a high risk of serious recidivism and serious harm to the public and children.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the Sentencing Council guideline for robbery by categorising harm and thus adopting an excessive starting point for sentence.
2. Whether the judge erred in finding the Appellant met the criteria for dangerousness and in failing to invite submissions on whether an extended sentence should be imposed.
3. Whether, in all the circumstances, the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge misapplied the robbery guideline such that the harm should have been placed in category 2 rather than category 1, producing a lower starting point.
• The court was wrong to find dangerousness; the judge did not invite submissions on extended sentence as indicated by R v Parry [2016] EWCA Crim 1822.
• The overall sentence was manifestly excessive, although no criticism was made of the judge's approach to structuring concurrent sentences or to plea credit/totality.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found that the lead offence (count 1 on indictment 6125) was mis-categorised by the sentencing judge. There was no evidence before the judge sufficient to show the victim suffered severe psychological harm; accordingly the harm fell into category 2, not category 1. The production of a knife amounted to culpability category A. For an adult offender the starting point for category 2A is five years (range four to eight).

The court recognised the Appellant's youth and relative immaturity and identified personal mitigation in his difficult upbringing, disrupted youth justice interventions and low income. Those features required a reduction from an adult starting point. The court assessed that, for an adult after trial, a sentence in the region of eight years would have been appropriate for the lead offence; after mitigation an overall sentence should be reduced to six years and, after allowing plea credit, the appropriate custodial term would be four years, satisfying the section 266 test for an extended sentence.

Although appellate courts normally defer on dangerousness findings (see R v Leighton Williams), the court considered it necessary to re-evaluate dangerousness because the sentencing judge's remarks were brief and he had not conducted a trial. The court concluded there remained a significant risk of serious harm based on: (1) the nature of the offences (threatened use of a knife against lone young persons, sometimes in confined locations); (2) the pattern and period over which offences were committed; (3) evidence that the Appellant derived pleasure from offending in addition to financial gain; and (4) the pre-sentence report's assessment. The court therefore upheld the conclusion that the Appellant was dangerous and that a determinate sentence alone would not sufficiently protect the public.

The court adjusted the extended licence period downward from four years to three years as the period sufficient to protect the public. It quashed the previously imposed extended determinate sentence of nine years four months under section 266 and substituted an extended sentence of detention in a young offender institution of seven years, comprising a custodial term of four years and an extended licence period of three years. The other concurrent sentences were left undisturbed.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

Holding: The court quashed the extended determinate sentence of nine years four months imposed under section 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and substituted an extended sentence of seven years' detention in a young offender institution, comprising a custodial term of four years and an extended licence period of three years. All other sentences were left undisturbed.

Implications: The direct effect is a reduced custodial and extended licence period for the Appellant on the lead offence; other concurrent sentences remain in force. The judgment does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond its application of existing guidance on categorisation, mitigation for youth and the re-evaluation of dangerousness where sentencing remarks are exiguous.