Factual and Procedural Background
The Attorney General applied under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for leave to refer a sentence as unduly lenient. The appeal was determined by Judge Dingemans (senior), Judge Garnham and Judge Williams in the Court of Appeal. The Offender, aged 27 at the time of the hearing, pleaded guilty on 7 October 2025 to six counts of robbery and one count of fraud arising from a series of incidents in June 2023. On 9 January 2026 the Offender was sentenced in Court A by Judge Darling to concurrent terms of 32 months' imprisonment on each count (total 32 months). The judge gave what he described as 33% credit for guilty pleas; there was an argument on the reference as to whether the correct credit should have been 25%.
The factual incidents in June 2023 involved multiple robberies on underground trains and platforms and one use of stolen bank cards at shops. The offences involved physical assaults on several victims, including vulnerable victims and the taking of high-value goods (mobile phones and bank cards). Some co-defendants were sentenced earlier in October 2023 to custodial terms ranging, as recorded in the material, from 27 to 40 months. The Offender was later detained in another jurisdiction for unrelated offending and returned to this jurisdiction, where he was arrested in September 2025. He pleaded guilty in October 2025 to most counts and the plea basis accepted he was unaware of knives carried by others and that stolen cards were used only to purchase snacks and drinks.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient because the sentencing judge failed properly to reflect totality when dealing with multiple separate robberies.
- Whether the sentencing judge erred by making an inappropriate downward adjustment for delay.
- Whether the sentencing judge made an unwarranted downward adjustment to achieve parity with co-defendants, producing unjust disparity.
- Whether the reduction for guilty pleas should have been 25% rather than the 33% applied by the sentencing judge.
Arguments of the Parties
Attorney Holland (on behalf of the Attorney General)
- Submitted the sentence was unduly lenient because the judge had failed to increase the overall sentence to reflect totality of multiple offences.
- Argued the judge made an unwarranted downward adjustment for delay.
- Argued the judge made an unwarranted downward adjustment to achieve parity with others involved in the offending.
Attorney Anderson (on behalf of the Offender)
- Submitted that totality had been properly considered and concurrent sentences were appropriate.
- Argued it was appropriate to reflect delay in the proceedings.
- Submitted the sentence properly reflected the Offender's role and that increasing it would create issues of disparity with co-defendants.
- Contended the sentence was not unduly lenient.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Attorney General's Reference No 44 of 2025 (R v Defendant A) [2025] EWCA Crim 2211 |
Example of the Court of Appeal refusing to increase a sentence because doing so would create very significant and unjust disparity between co-offenders. |
The court relied on the principle that disparity between co-offenders can be a reason not to increase a sentence but considered that avoiding unjustified disparity must be balanced against correcting an unduly lenient sentence here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court found it was not apparent how the sentencing judge had dealt with totality despite express references to it and the imposition of concurrent sentences. The Court held the sentencing judge did not explain any uplift to reflect the aggregate criminality of six separate robberies affecting different victims.
The court rejected the use of delay as justification for a substantial reduction given that the Offender had been out of the jurisdiction and then in custody abroad for unrelated offending, and that there was no adequate basis to reduce sentence for delay here.
The Sentencing Council robbery guideline was applied: the Court considered each offence merited a starting point of five years' custody because each involved significant use of force and there were six separate offences. The court explained that it is impermissible simply to multiply the starting point by the number of offences, but some account must be taken of separate harm to separate victims. The panel concluded the very least the sentencing judge could have imposed before mitigation was eight years; however, balancing the features and concern to avoid very significant and unjustified disparity with co-defendants, the Court decided an aggregate sentence of five years' imprisonment would reflect all offending.
The court accepted mitigation including the Offender's deprived upbringing, bereavement disorder and addressed heroin addiction, but noted adverse prison conduct recorded post-offending. On plea credit the Court held 25% (one-quarter) was the appropriate discount and there was no justification for the one-third credit the sentencing judge applied.
Applying a 25% discount to the agreed aggregate sentence of five years yielded concurrent terms of 45 months on each count. The Court therefore concluded the original concurrent sentences of 32 months were insufficient.
Holding and Implications
REFERENCE ALLOWED; SENTENCES INCREASED
Direct effect: Leave to refer was granted, the Attorney General's Reference was allowed, and the concurrent sentences of 32 months' imprisonment on each count were quashed and substituted with concurrent terms of 45 months' imprisonment on each count.
No broader new legal principle was established; the decision corrected the particular sentence in this case while expressly balancing the need to avoid unjustified disparity with co-defendants.