Rawlings Akonedo [2019] EWCA Crim 1125

Rawlings Akonedo v R [2019] EWCA Crim 1125 was an application to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Lady Justice Nicola Davies, Mr Justice Martin Spencer, and His Honour Judge Picton) in which Mr Akonedo renewed his application for permission to appeal against sentence, permission having been refused by the Single Judge.

On 21 November 2018 Mr Akonedo pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On 10 January 2019 he was sentenced to five years’ detention in a young offender institution for the aggravated burglary and two years’ detention concurrent for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, making a total of five years’ detention. The court corrected an error on the court record sheet to record a Victim Surcharge Order of thirty pounds rather than one hundred and forty pounds.

The lead offence was committed by Mr Akonedo together with two others on 23 October 2018. Mr Akonedo was born on 11 November 2000 and was therefore seventeen years old at the time of the offence, some three weeks short of his eighteenth birthday. He had attained eighteen by the time of sentence. One co-accused, PA, was born on 25 February 2001 and was therefore aged seventeen both at the time of the offence and at the time of sentencing, though he attained his eighteenth birthday approximately seven weeks later. On 23 October 2018 the victim, aged fifty-eight, was at his home address watching television when PA, armed with a claw hammer, burst through the door and struck the victim fifteen times on the arms and legs with the hammer. PA threatened to break every bone in the victim’s body unless he opened the back door, which he did. This allowed Mr Akonedo and a third co-accused to enter the premises. They had hoods pulled up to disguise their appearance. They pushed the victim back into his living room. Mr Akonedo struck the victim in the face a few times and they demanded to know where the money was. They demanded bagged cannabis from the victim, who told them that he had none. He did have fifteen cannabis plants upstairs, but when told to cut them down he said that the plants were not ready to be harvested. A neighbour who had seen two men acting suspiciously contacted the police. Police officers arrived whilst the three accused were still inside the property and the defendants were arrested. The whole incident had lasted some twenty minutes. The victim sustained bruising to both arms, cuts to his lower left leg which caused significant bleeding, and bruising and swelling to both sides of his face.

The three defendants were all young men of previous positive good character. They were intelligent and must have known how terrifying the offence would be. It was agreed before the learned judge that the offence fell within category one of the Sentencing Guidelines, with a starting point of ten years’ custody and a category range of nine to thirteen years. The sentencing judge did not distinguish between Mr Akonedo and the other co-accused with whom he had entered the premises. The judge took a starting point of nine years, which the court considered was generous given the circumstances of the offence. He then reduced the sentence to six years after applying the full credit for plea. The sentence was further reduced to five years to take into account the sentence which was to be passed on the seventeen year old co-defendant PA, who fell to be sentenced as a youth. Although PA was the youngest, his offending had been the most serious as he was the one who had forced entry and produced the hammer, repeatedly striking the victim and threatening to break every bone in his body.

On behalf of Mr Akonedo, Mr Levy, appearing pro bono, submitted that the sentence imposed was arguably manifestly excessive and that the nine year starting point should have been reduced to between a half and two thirds for Mr Akonedo because he was a youth at the time of the offence. It was argued that the learned judge should have taken additional account of the applicant’s age at the time of the offences by starting at a lower starting point, this argument being raised particularly by comparison to what the learned judge did with PA. It was also argued that there had been insufficient account taken of the applicant’s good character.

The court referred to Hashi [2019] EWCA Crim 185, in which it had been pointed out that the guideline on sentencing children and young persons is only a rough guide and must not be applied mechanistically. The guideline internally recognises that it is only a rough guide and that ultimately it is a matter for the sentencing judge as to what, if any, discount is to be given to a young offender in any particular case. The court emphasised that clearly the same factors cannot apply when sentencing a person who, at the date of the offence, was three weeks shy of his eighteenth birthday as to when sentencing, say, a fifteen year old.

The court noted that in refusing permission to appeal the Single Judge had stated that the judge had made a reduction on account of the fact that the applicant was not much older than the other defendant in relation to whom the judge applied the Sentencing Guidelines, reducing the sentence from six to five years to reflect that point. Bearing in mind that the applicant was almost eighteen when the offence was committed, the Single Judge considered that the judge made adequate allowance for the applicant’s age.

The court agreed with the Single Judge and for the reasons stated by him considered that it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. In short, the court refused the renewed application for permission to appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had made adequate allowance for Mr Akonedo’s age by reducing the sentence from six to five years.

Hashi [2019] EWCA Crim 185