Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, his co-defendants, and the two victims were all under 18, so the court made an anonymity order and referred to the Appellant as “Appellant.” [Para 24][Para 25][Para 26][Para 27][Para 28][Para 29][Para 30]
On 7 January 2025, the Appellant and six co-defendants were involved in the robbery of two schoolboys in Birmingham. [Para 35] The first robbery took place on a bus shortly after 1:00 pm, where the group surrounded Victim 1, used a knife and an imitation firearm, struck him, and took his mobile phone; Victim 1 later suffered serious injuries including a fractured eye socket. [Para 36][Para 37][Para 38][Para 39][Para 40][Para 41] Later that day, the same group confronted Victim 2 at Smethwick Galton Station, threatened him with what appeared to be a knife and a gun, and took his jacket. [Para 42][Para 43][Para 44][Para 45] When the Appellant was arrested, he was in possession of a knife and the blue imitation firearm used in the robbery of Victim 2, and he had already received a Referral Order for the possession offences. [Para 46] He pleaded guilty to the two robbery counts on the second day of trial and was sentenced on 14 November 2025 to a total of 45 months’ detention; his application for permission to appeal against sentence was referred to the Full Court by the Registrar. [Para 31][Para 32]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judge erred in principle by imposing immediate custody on a child offender, rather than a youth rehabilitation order with supervision and surveillance. [Para 61][Para 67][Para 70][Para 73][Para 85]
- Whether the 45-month sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the Appellant’s asserted subordinate role, mitigation, previous good character, and compliance with the Referral Order. [Para 61][Para 62][Para 64][Para 87][Para 91]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Counsel argued that custody was wrong in principle and that a youth rehabilitation order with supervision and surveillance was the proper sentence because of the Appellant’s allegedly minor role, strong personal mitigation, compliance with the Referral Order, and previous good character. [Para 61]
- In oral submissions, counsel focused on the Appellant’s subordinate role and submitted that the 45-month term was manifestly excessive. [Para 62][Para 64]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the sentencing guidelines for children and young people emphasise rehabilitation, but also require the court to focus on the seriousness of the offence, diminished culpability arising from youth, the heavier impact of punishment on children, and the usual assessment of culpability and harm. [Para 66]
The robbery guideline permitted custody or a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and training where there was very significant force, the threat or use of a bladed article or imitation firearm, or significant physical or psychological harm. [Para 67][Para 68][Para 69][Para 70]
Applying those principles, the court held that immediate custody was plainly justified because all three custodial factors were present in the robbery of Victim 1: very significant force, threats involving knives and an imitation firearm, and significant psychological harm. [Para 73] The victim impact evidence showed severe and continuing trauma, anxiety, withdrawal from college and social life, and the need for therapy. [Para 74][Para 75][Para 76][Para 77][Para 78][Para 79]
The court also considered the likely adult sentencing position and concluded that the robberies involved high culpability and serious harm, with an adult starting point of at least 8 years and possibly more than 10 years for the first robbery, plus a further starting point of about 5 years for the second robbery. [Para 80][Para 81] On that basis, the court said it could not sensibly be argued that the judge had erred in principle by imposing immediate custody. [Para 82][Para 83][Para 84]
As to the Appellant’s role and mitigation, the court held that the judge had in fact addressed the Appellant’s subordinate role, noting that numbers were central to the group intimidation; the Appellant was not merely passive because he struck Victim 1 and was later found with the imitation firearm and a knife. [Para 87][Para 88] The court further held that the judge had allowed substantial mitigation by reducing the notional adult term by 50% and then granting a further 10% discount for the guilty plea, which reflected age, role, and other mitigation. [Para 91]
Holding and Implications
Permission to appeal against sentence was refused. [Para 94]
The direct effect was that the 45-month detention order remained in place. [Para 94] The court also stated that where an adult sentence for a robbery of this type would be 8 to 10 years or more, a non-custodial sentence for a child or young person will rarely be appropriate, and a term below 50% of the adult sentence will be uncommon. [Para 93]