Summary of Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was the defendant in proceedings before The Crown Court and appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). On 20 June 2025 the Applicant, then aged 27, pleaded guilty to multiple offences on two indictments and was sentenced. On the first indictment the court imposed extended determinate sentences of 13 years on each relevant count (each comprising 9 years' custody plus 4 years' extended licence), with counts on that indictment concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentence on the second indictment. On the second indictment the Applicant received 18 months' imprisonment, to run consecutively, producing a total custodial term of 10½ years.

The factual basis for the convictions (as set out to the sentencing judge) included: (a) an early-hours street robbery in which the Applicant and two co-accused surrounded and pinned Victim A and stole a watch valued at £1,000; (b) attacks in an alleyway on Victim B and Victim C in which Victim C was struck repeatedly and threatened with a stabbing (no evidence of possession of a knife), and Victim B was placed in a neck hold and relinquished a watch valued at £600; and (c) an attempted robbery of an off-duty police officer, Victim D, involving an attack after following his taxi for around 30 minutes.

The Applicant had pleaded guilty to all offences. The Applicant had prior convictions including two robberies in 2019 and offences for possession of bladed articles, and was on licence at the time of the subject offending. The sentencing judge concluded the offences on the first indictment were within culpability B and harm category 2 of the street robbery guideline, and that the offence on the second indictment fell within culpability B and harm category 3. The judge found multiple aggravating factors, concluded the Applicant met the test for dangerousness, and imposed extended determinate sentences. The Applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal sentence after refusal by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the pre-plea (pre-credit) starting point of 12 years imposed on the first indictment was manifestly excessive and gave rise to undue disparity with sentences imposed on the co-accused.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the Applicant dangerous and in imposing extended determinate sentences (i.e., whether the dangerousness test was satisfied and whether an extended sentence was necessary).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Ground 1: The 12-year pre-credit starting point on the first indictment was manifestly excessive and produced undue disparity with sentences for Co-accused A and Co-accused B.
• Ground 2: The judge was wrong to find the Applicant dangerous and to impose extended sentences because (i) the offending had not resulted in really serious harm; (ii) there was insufficient basis to conclude the Applicant posed a significant risk of causing serious harm in future; (iii) no evidence supported the judge's statement that the Applicant would likely seriously injure or kill someone; (iv) no evidence any of them was armed with a knife; and (v) the PSR did not conclude the Applicant posed a significant risk of causing serious harm per se and identified prospects for risk-reducing interventions.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court (Judge Soole delivering judgment) considered each ground and found neither to be arguable. On the disparity challenge the Court applied the public-perception test (whether the public would perceive an injustice) and analysed the sentencing positions of the co-accused. The Court noted that Co-accused B (who had no relevant previous convictions) received reductions for plea and had an overall starting point comparable when adjusted for plea and trial outcomes; Co-accused A's prior convictions were of lesser seriousness and he was younger when they occurred. By contrast, the Applicant had very significant aggravating features: prior similar robberies in 2019 (including use of choke holds and serious injury to victims) and commission of the present offences while on licence. The Court concluded there was no arguable disparity in the Applicant's 12-year starting point and that the starting point was justified given the cumulative aggravating factors and that the judge had been sentencing for three separate offences.

On the dangerousness ground the Court upheld the sentencing judge's conclusion that the dangerousness test was met. The Court emphasised the combination of the facts of the offending, the commission while on licence for similar offences, and the PSR assessment that the Applicant posed a high risk of causing serious harm and a high risk of violent offending. That assessment provided strong support for the judge's view that an extended sentence was necessary.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED.

Direct effect: The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused and the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge remain in place. The opinion does not identify or establish any new binding legal precedent beyond its application of established sentencing principles to the facts of this case.