Aminu, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence brought with leave. The Appellant (aged 36 at the time of the judgment and 34 at the time of the offending) pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to multiple offences including Robbery and three counts of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). Two further counts were ordered to lie on file. The Appellant originally indicated guilty pleas in the magistrates' court and received one-third credit for that stage.

Relevant procedural and sentencing events (anonymised):

• 18 October 2024: guilty pleas entered to Counts 1–6; later pleas on two counts vacated and those counts ordered to lie on file.
• 7 May 2025: at sentence in the Crown Court (Judge Miller), the Appellant was sentenced to an Extended Determinate Sentence of 10 years (5 years custodial term plus a 5 year extended licence) on the robbery count, with concurrent terms on the ABH counts. A prior community order was revoked.
• The factual material before the sentencing judge included a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric report identifying schizoaffective disorder and substance misuse issues, and a probation assessment that the Appellant posed a high risk of serious harm.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the robbery guideline by placing the robbery in a higher category (A2) such that the starting point was too high.
2. Whether the judge gave excessive weight to aggravating factors and insufficient weight to mitigation, leading to an excessive notional sentence (7½ years before credit).
3. Whether the total sentence breached the principle of totality and was therefore disproportionate.
4. Whether the imposition and length of the extended licence period (5 years) was excessive, and whether the judge failed to consider the time required to complete offender programmes.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Papamichael)

• The robbery was wrongly categorised A2 under the Sentencing Council guideline; the correct category was lower, making the starting point too high.
• The judge over-emphasised aggravating features and under-weighted mitigation, producing an excessive notional sentence.
• The overall sentence breached the totality principle and was greater than the sum of appropriate notional sentences.
• The extended sentence and 5 year extension period were unnecessary or excessive; the judge failed properly to consider programme completion times and alternatives to a lengthy extension.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a structured analysis constrained to the material before it.

1. Guideline approach and categorisation:
   • The court emphasised that Sentencing Council guidelines are aids to, not substitutes for, judicial judgment; categories require a holistic assessment of culpability and harm.
   • Analysing the robbery as a sequence of events (snatching of a phone, scuffle, attempted punch, destruction of the phone, and a later threat with a bag containing a metal bar), the court concluded the robbery was miscategorised by the sentencing judge as A2 and, when viewed holistically, the Appellant's culpability fell in category B for culpability and category 3 for harm, placing the offence in B3 (with a 2 year starting point and 1–4 year range), such that a sentence of at least 3 years could be justified for that offence standing alone.
2. Analysis of the other offences:
   • The two ABH counts from the first incident (attacks on two middle‑aged victims, one with a serious illness) were treated as category A1 offences with starting points of 2½ years; each warranted between 2½ and 3 years given persistence and impact.
   • The further ABH committed immediately after the robbery (use of a bag containing a metal lump causing a cut to the nose) fell in B2 and would justify at least a 1 year sentence standing alone.
3. Totality and sentence structure:
   • The court accepted that individual notional sentences cannot be simply aggregated and that the sentencing judge properly considered the totality guideline. It agreed that a total sentence after trial of about 7½ years (possibly 8 years) was supportable on the facts, and that reduction to 5 years after credit for guilty pleas was appropriate.
   • The court accepted the sentencing judge's choice to treat the robbery as the lead offence and to enhance that sentence to reflect the other offending rather than impose consecutive terms; this structuring was within judicial discretion and did not render the overall sentence manifestly excessive.
4. Extended sentence and extension period:
   • The court accepted the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude the Appellant met the dangerousness threshold on the material before him (previous relevant convictions, the present offending, the PSR and psychiatric material, erratic engagement with services and substance misuse).
   • The purpose of the extended period was emphasised as public protection rather than a period calibrated to treatment. On that basis the court upheld the judge's view that a 5 year extension was just and proportionate given the risk factors.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED.

Direct effect: the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the sentencing judge's order: an Extended Determinate Sentence of 10 years (5 years custody with a 5 year extended licence) on the robbery count, with the concurrent sentences on the ABH counts and other sentencing decisions maintained. The court accepted that the robbery had been miscategorised but concluded that, given the proper holistic analysis and the judge's lawful structuring and totality considerations, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. No new legal precedent was established; the decision applies the guidelines and established sentencing principles to the facts of this case.