Oluwasina, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 11 June 2022 the Appellant (then aged 17) entered Company A, disguised with a balaclava and gloves, and grabbed the Victim's arm. The Appellant produced a large knife, shouted at the Victim, and left the premises taking the Victim's mobile phone (containing a debit card) and several boxes of cigarettes. Later that evening the Victim's bank card was used at Company B and the Appellant was detained; police found the Victim's bank card, loose tobacco and a gift card on him. A subsequent search of the Appellant's address recovered a large kitchen knife in a suitcase, gloves and a balaclava. The Appellant changed his plea to guilty on 14 May 2025; on 14 August 2025 Judge Berlin sentenced him to 46 months' detention in a young offender institution. The Appellant appealed by leave of the Single Judge against sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 46 months' detention was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle.
2. Whether the appropriate starting point under the Robbery Guidelines was the figure adopted by the judge or a higher starting point (as argued by the Court of Appeal).
3. Whether it was permissible to increase the sentence to reflect the Appellant's adult age at sentence.
4. What allowance should be made for the Appellant's mitigation (age at the time, lack of previous convictions, delay, remorse, efforts at rehabilitation, qualifications and plea).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The total sentence of 46 months was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle.
• The judge adopted too high a starting point and the 4 month increase to reflect adulthood at sentence was unnecessary and disproportionate.
• Insufficient weight was given to mitigation: deprived background, previous good character, age at the time of the offence (17), delay in trial, absence of interim offending, remorse, steps taken to address behaviour, achieved qualifications, low risk per Probation Service, and the plea.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The panel (Judge Garnham delivering the judgment) reviewed the sentencing judge's application of the Robbery Guidelines. The sentencing judge had treated the case as between culpability categories A1 and A2 and adopted a starting point of 5 years 6 months. The Court of Appeal concluded the correct starting point was 6 years 6 months (78 months), a figure suggested but not adopted below, because it better reflected the psychological harm to the Victim and financial harm to the shop owner. The court noted that, if the shop-owner harm is taken into account in fixing the starting point, it should not be double-counted as a statutory aggravating feature later in the exercise.

The court accepted the judge's one-third reduction from the starting point to reflect the Appellant's age at the date of the offence (reducing 78 months to 52 months). The court concluded the sentencing judge's subsequent 2-month increase to reflect that the Appellant was an adult at sentence was unjustified: age at sentence cannot properly warrant an increase. The court allowed a further reduction for the Appellant's personal mitigation (as recognised by the sentencing judge) and retained the 15% reduction for plea. The court performed the arithmetic: 78 months starting point, less one-third = 52 months; further mitigation reduced to 43 months; less 15% for plea, rounded down, produced 36 months.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED

The court substituted a sentence of 36 months' detention in a young offender institution for the 46 months imposed below.

Direct effect: the Appellant's custodial term is reduced by 10 months. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond the application of the Robbery Guidelines to the facts of this case.