Courtney Matthew [2019] EWCA Crim 1500

R v Courtney Matthew [2019] EWCA Crim 1500 concerned an appeal against an extended sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Snaresbrook for a series of street robberies; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

On 1 March 2019, following his conviction after trial, Mr Matthew was sentenced to an extended sentence of eleven years pursuant to section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising a custodial term of eight years and an extension period of three years, for two offences of robbery. He received concurrent determinate sentences for four further offences of robbery, one theft, and one offence of possessing a bladed article. He had pleaded guilty at an early stage to possessing cannabis, for which no separate penalty was imposed. Section 45 orders under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 were made in respect of four victims who were under eighteen.

Between 22 May and 5 June 2018, Mr Matthew committed a series of street robberies in Leytonstone and Walthamstow, targeting young people. On 22 May, he approached two sixteen-year-old boys, EA and KH, borrowing EA’s mobile phone and then pocketing it. He then demanded KH’s phone, claiming to have a gun and showing an object in his bag. When KH grabbed his arm, Mr Matthew threatened to shoot him. On 1 June, he approached Mr Shearman, asked to borrow his phone, and demanded his ring, claiming to have a knife. Mr Shearman suffered anxiety and was too fearful to leave his house for a period. The following evening, Mr Matthew robbed two students, Mr Barnett and Mr Shaw, on a footpath, claiming to have a gun and identifying himself as a notorious gangster named Ricardo Augustine. He forced them to withdraw £50 each at a cashpoint. Both men suffered lasting psychological effects; Mr Barnett moved home and required counselling, while Mr Shaw experienced disrupted sleep and prolonged vulnerability. On 5 June, Mr Matthew robbed two schoolboys, one aged fifteen. He lifted his top to reveal a large knife in his waistband, drew the blade, and ordered them to place valuables into his bag. At trial, his defence was that his brother might have committed the offences.

Mr Matthew was twenty-eight at sentence and had twenty-five convictions for sixty-one offences spanning from 2003 to 2017. He had been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in 2013 for a string of robberies using a similar modus operandi, approaching schoolchildren or students, engaging them in conversation, and claiming to have been released from prison for manslaughter. He refused to attend a video link interview for a pre-sentence report. The probation service assessed him as posing a high risk of serious harm to known adults, children, and the public, and suggested the court might consider an extended sentence necessary. A psychiatric report from Dr McInerny indicated Mr Matthew had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder which likely contributed to his offending, and possibly a dissocial personality disorder. Dr McInerny considered it highly likely Mr Matthew would continue committing acquisitive offences without long-term rehabilitation, but thought his offending had not escalated into more serious violent disorder and was unlikely to do so in the near future.

The appeal was confined to the finding of dangerousness and the imposition of an extended sentence. Mr Polson, appearing for Mr Matthew, submitted that the finding was unsupported by the evidence and that his offending was designed to avoid physical harm, as demonstrated by his method in previous and current offending. He argued the judge placed too much reliance on impetuous conduct during trial and that by categorising the lead offences as Category 2A the judge implicitly recognised no serious psychological harm had been caused. While accepting a high risk of further specified offences, Mr Polson contended there was no evidence in Mr Matthew’s past offending of causing serious psychological or physical harm.

The sentencing judge had noted that Mr Matthew targeted young people, particularly schoolchildren. As a juvenile he had committed serious offences including robbery, possession of an imitation firearm, violence, and dishonesty. His 2013 robberies involved the same pattern of approaching young people, engaging them in distracting conversations, and falsely claiming to have been released from prison for manslaughter. On dangerousness, the judge stated he did not base his finding solely on the pre-sentence report conclusions but on all the material, particularly Mr Matthew’s calculating attitude to robbery, use of violence, absence of self-control, and propensity to arm himself with a weapon and produce it. The judge considered both physical and psychological harm when assessing the risk of serious injury. He referred to incidents during trial when Mr Matthew swore in court and on another occasion stormed out when the case was adjourned, finding it would take very little to trigger a further lack of self-control. He concluded a determinate sentence would be insufficient to protect the public and exercised his discretion to impose an extended sentence.

Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Goss, and Mr Justice Knowles held that the judge’s process and reasoning were faultless. The extended sentence, both the custodial term and the three-year extension period, was one to which the judge was quite entitled to come.

In short, the appeal against an extended sentence for a series of street robberies targeting young people was dismissed, the Court of Appeal finding no fault in the judge’s reasoning or his assessment of dangerousness.