R v YGW [2026] EWCA Crim 1063

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

[2026] EWCA Crim 1063

Venue Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Date Thursday 18 June 2026

Before

LORD JUSTICE COULSON

MRS JUSTICE CUTTS

HER HONOUR JUDGE LUCKING KC

(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)

Between

REXCrown

Between

"YGW"

__________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

_________

MR J MANN appeared for Applicant

_________

JUDGMENT

[1]The applicant, his co-defendants and the two victims of these robberies are all under 18. In consequence, we make an anonymity order in the terms set out below. We shall refer to the applicant as "YGW".

[2]No matter relating to YGW and/or the co-defendants and/or either of the victims in these proceedings may be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify him or her as a person concerned in the proceedings. In particular, no reference must be made to(a) his or her names;

(b) his or her addresses;

(d) the identity of any place of work and

(e) any still or moving image of him or her.

[3]YGW is now 16. At the date of the two robberies with which this application is concerned he was 15 years and 5 months old. When he pleaded guilty to the two robbery counts, on the second day of the trial, he was 16. On 14 November 2025 he was sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court by HHJ Peter Cooke ("the judge") to a total of 45 months’ detention in respect of the two robberies. His application for permission to appeal against sentence has been referred to the Full Court by the Registrar. The Two Robberies

[4]On 7 January 2025, YGW and his six co-defendants were involved in the robbery of two schoolboys in Birmingham.

[5]The first robbery was committed upstairs on a bus just after 1.00 pm. Complainant 1 had just finished college and caught the No 6 bus from Moor Street Station. He boarded the bus after YGW and his co-defendants and did not seek to engage with any of them. They were at the back of the bus and the complainant sat a few rows in front. They wore masks throughout the attack.

[6]Subsequently defendant 4 moved from his seat to the place beyond complainant 1 and told complainant 1 to hand over ‘his stuff’. Immediately the other males including YGW got up from their seats and circled round complainant 1, surrounding him to ensure that he could not escape. YGW stood next to defendant 6, who produced a knife and threatened complainant 1 with it. Defendant 6 also struck him in the face. Defendant 4 kicked and stamped on complainant 1. Defendant 4 pulled complainant 1's shoulder bag with such force that the strap broke and defendant 4 whipped him with the broken bag strap. Subsequently a blue gun was produced by defendant 5 (also wearing a mask), which he pointed at complainant 1. This turned out to be an imitation firearm, but of course complainant 1 did not know that at the time. Defendant 5 struck complainant 1 across the face and produced the gun again. During these events, YGW also struck complainant 1.

[7]In this way YGW and defendants 4, 5 and 6 all struck complainant 1 when he was surrounded - some with significant force. During this sustained and unprovoked attack, in an attempt to protect himself, complainant 1 put his head down and placed his arms over his head. Someone attempted to snatch his mobile phone and when it fell to the floor it was taken from him.

[8]Defendant 1, still wearing the mask, recorded the incident when the firearm was being pointed towards complainant 1. Another recording was done by defendant 3, which included a moment when defendant 4 kicked complainant 1. The defendants subsequently posted a video of the attack on Snapchat.

[9]Once YGW and his co-defendants had left the bus, a passenger alerted the driver who let complainant 1 use his mobile phone to contact police. He was taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Amongst other things he suffered a fractured eye socket, an injury to his right wrist, a continuous nosebleed and swollen nose and a chip to his front incisor.

[10]Later that day the same group of defendants, again including YGW, were at Smethwick Galton Station when complainant 2 arrived at the station to catch a train home from school. He was wearing a valuable jacket. The defendants blocked his path as they arrived at the platform. Defendant 4 was wearing a balaclava. He asked if complainant 2 would sell the jacket for £200. The complainant thought he was joking but he then saw another of the males lift up his waistband to reveal a black leather case which he believed contained a knife. The group had then surrounded complainant 2.

[11]Defendant 4 continued to demand the jacket and became more direct and threatening, staring hard at complainant 2 all the while. When complainant 2 started to take off the jacket, defendant 6 produced a gun which he pointed and waved at complainant 2. It was subsequently discovered that this was a different gun to the one that had been produced on the bus. Defendant 4 put the jacket on and remarked how good it looked on him. When complainant 2 asked for it back he was told to shut up. Defendant 2 told everyone which school complainant 2 went to, which appeared to be a threat.

[12]When the train arrived, all the defendants and complainant 2 boarded the train. However YGW and his co-defendants only remained on the train for one stop. They got off and defendant 4 stuck his fingers up at complainant 2 as he left the train still wearing the jacket.

[13]Some of the defendants were arrested that day including defendant 4, who was still wearing the jacket. When YGW was arrested he was in possession of a knife and the blue imitation firearm that had been used in the robbery of complainant 2 on the bus. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to possession of the knife and the firearm and was subject to a Referral Order. He pleaded not guilty to the two robbery counts until he changed his plea on the second day of the trial. The Sentencing Exercise

[14]By his sentencing remarks, the judge was fully aware of the need for a sentence for a child or a young person to focus on rehabilitation, and that a custodial sentence was always a measure of last resort. He said that the custodial sentence should only be imposed when the offending was so serious that no other sanction was appropriate.

[15]The judge made it plain that in his view that was the situation here in respect of YGW and all the co-defendants. The judge said this:

"However, on the facts of this case, I am quite sure that immature though you might be, you all knew exactly what the agenda was for that day. You were going to find victims and terrify them into handing over their valuables by outnumbering them six or seven to one and producing weapons. There was nothing spontaneous, or impulsive, or spur of the moment about this. The fact that you each had face coverings establishes that as does the possession of the weapons and not one but two imitation handguns and a large lethal-looking knife which was produced from a sheath."

[16]The judge noted that, for the robbery of complainant 1 alone, if the defendants had been adults, the starting point in the Sentencing Guidelines would have been 8 years' custody. Indeed in relation to defendant 5 he took an adult starting point of 8 years 4 months.

[17]When it came to YGW the judge made it clear that he had read all the relevant reports and considered all the submissions that had been made to him. He then went on:

"I have considered all the lesser alternative options, like youth rehabilitation orders including those with onerous attachments for intensive supervision. I have considered detention and training which has that two-year ceiling that you have heard me refer to. But I have decided that in your case too the offending is so serious that what is called for here is a sentence longer than two years and so, I have to have recourse to long-term detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Act to achieve that. In my judgment, no other penalty is sufficient. So, let me tell you know how I have come to that decision and how long the sentence is going to be. As you know, I am taking the starting point of the hypothetical adult who had committed an offence like the one committed against [complainant 1] who could expect a sentence of eight years. But you did not just commit that offence and it represents the whole of the criminality of the day with you going on to commit the separate robbery of [complainant 2], with the weapon still present. That has not been taken account of in any way, shape or form in the base figure for count 1 and so an uplift is required. Because you played no active role beyond making up the numbers, but numbers were so important in an exercise in group intimidation and outnumbering of a lone vulnerable individual, but because of that I have settled on a somewhat lesser uplift than I did for [defendant 5], eight years and four months. So, I am keeping the uplift very low indeed and in no way could I have been remotely so generous to an adult offender. For offenders in the age range 15 to 17 it is generally considered appropriate to impose a sentence in the range half to two-thirds of what an adult would receive, and in your case I am prepared to apply a full 50 per cent reduction. That brings the sentence down to fifty months, which I consider the absolute minimum that it is appropriate for me to bring it down to. Your guilty plea, tendered at trial, entitles you to a further 10 per cent reduction which is five months, making a sentence of forty-five months."

The Grounds of Appeal

[18]The principal submission in Mr Mann's written advice on appeal is that the judge was wrong in principle to impose a custodial sentence and that a youth rehabilitation order with supervision and surveillance was the appropriate sentence. That is said to arise from the allegedly minor role played by YGW, the fact that there was strong personal mitigation, and the fact that he had complied with the Referral Order which had been imposed as a result of the possession of the knife and gun. The point was also made that he was of previous good character.

[19]In his helpful oral submissions this morning Mr Mann focused on those matters, particularly the subordinate role that the applicant played, in support of a submission that the 45 months was manifestly excessive. The Relevant Sentencing Guidelines

[20]The Overarching Guidelines in relation to Sentencing Children and Young People stress, as the judge did, that the court should focus on rehabilitation where possible, although the starting point is the seriousness of the offence (paragraph 1.2 of the guidelines). It was important to bear in mind factors that diminish culpability, because children are not fully developed and may not have attained full maturity (paragraph 1.5). The impact of punishment is very likely to be felt more heavily by a child, as any sentence would seem longer due to their age (paragraph 1.8). In addition, as with all guidelines, it is appropriate to consider culpability (paragraph 4.5) and harm (paragraph 4.6).

[21]The specific guideline concerned with Sentencing Children and Young People for Robbery makes plain that a custodial sentence or a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and training may be justified where one of the following factors apply:(1) The use of very significant force.

(2) The threat or use of a bladed article or imitation firearms where produced and

(3) Significant physical or psychological harm caused to the victim. If a court considers that the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence is appropriate, the court can have regard to the Adult Sentencing Guideline and then apply a reduction of between 33 per cent and 50 per cent. Is it Arguable that a Custodial Sentence Was Not Justified Here?

[22]On an application of the Guidelines that we have set out, the answer to that question is plainly "No". In relation to the robbery of complainant 1, not just one but all three of the factors that may justify custodial sentence (paragraph 21 above) were in place. There was the use of very significant force. Amongst other things, complainant 1 suffered from a fractured eye socket. There was the threat of knives which were produced and the threat of an imitation firearm which was also produced. In some ways however, most significantly in all there was the significant psychological harm caused to complainant 1.

[23]Complainant 1's mother produced a victim personal statement. Although it is unnecessary to read all of it into this judgment, it is as well to identify some significant parts of it. Having identified the brutality of the attack, which she said had left lasting damage to every part of his life, she went on to deal with the psychological effects of the attack on her son. She said:

"His mental health has deteriorated significantly. He now struggles daily with anxiety and fear. He no longer attends college, rarely leaves the house, and has become isolated from his friends and the world around him. The bright, sociable, and ambitious young man we knew has been replaced by someone who is constantly looking over his shoulder and lives in a state of fear. The attack didn’t just harm him physically, it has stolen his confidence, disrupted his education, and has shattered his sense of safety. Our whole family has been affected. As parents, it is heartbreaking to watch your child suffer in this way, knowing there is little you can do to undo the damage caused. As a result of the trauma he experienced, my son is now undergoing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to help him cope with the emotional and psychological effects. He has been dealing with symptoms of trauma, including nightmares, trouble sleeping, and heightened anxiety. No child should have to learn how to navigate the world through fear at such a young age. What happened to my son was not just a moment of violence it has become a long, ongoing struggle to reclaim his life. We hope this court recognises the true and lasting impact this crime has had and continues to have on him and on our family. We are still living with the consequences of this attack every single day."

[24]If YGW and his co-defendants had been adults this would have been a robbery with high culpability and serious harm, with a recommended 8-year starting point, all as the judge noted. The recommended range for such an offence is between 7 to 12 years. In our view, there were a number of aggravating features here which would have taken it way above the 8-year starting point, including the vulnerability of the victim, the use of masks, the targeting of high value goods and the filming of the attack. In our view therefore, a starting point, if these defendants had been adults, in excess of 10 years may well have been justified.

[25]If, as the judge rightly said, the focus was on the robbery of complainant 1, it was also necessary to take into account the robbery of complainant 2 when considering the overall sentence. That would have also involved high culpability because of the use of a weapon and, even though harm would have been in category 2, there were other aggravating features. It is therefore likely that for an adult in respect of the attack on complainant 2, the starting point would have been 5 years. Of course, there would have been some reduction to reflect totality.

[26]Accordingly in this case, where adults would have received 10 years or more for a robbery of this type, we do not consider that it can be sensibly argued that the judge erred in principle by imposing a sentence of immediate custody. As we have said, not just one but all three of the potential factors justifying a custodial sentence were in play here, and there were significant aggravating factors.

[27]Mr Mann indicated in his written advice that the judge could have imposed a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance. So he could. Indeed, the judge expressly reflected on that option, and indeed on all the options short of custody, in his sentencing remarks. But those remarks made it clear that the judge regarded these offences as so serious that only immediate detention was appropriate punishment. That was clearly a conclusion that was open to him. It was not wrong in principle. Other Matters

[28]We turn to the question of the judge's starting point (and whether that was manifestly excessive) and also the question of mitigation. The principal argument that was advanced in support of the submission that the judge's starting point was too high was by reference to the subordinate role played by the applicant. However, it is wrong to say that the judge made no specific reference to that role in his sentencing remarks. In those remarks, on a number of occasions, the judge said that, even if an individual was simply there to make up numbers "numbers are a critical element in an exercise of group intimidation and outnumbering a lone and vulnerable individual." In any event, it cannot be said that YGW was simply a passive participant. He struck complainant 1. Subsequently he was found in possession of the imitation firearm that had been used to terrorise complainant 1. When he was arrested he was also in possession of a knife.

[29]Accordingly, we do not consider that the judge failed to have regard to the role played by YGW.

[30]As to mitigation, it is right to say that the judge did not expressly refer to those specific matters of mitigation now relied upon by Mr Mann. But it could not be said that he had no regard to those matters. On the contrary, the judge expressly applied a reduction of 50 per cent to the term which would have been appropriate if YGW had been an adult. The judge said that that was "the absolute minimum that it is appropriate for me to bring it down to". That was a very significant reduction, and bigger than the percentage reduction in relation to defendant 1. That could only have been justified by reference, not only to YGW's age, but also his subordinate role and all the other points of mitigation that were available to him. We should also point out, of course, that it was reduction from a notional adult term (8 years) that, for the reasons we have explained, we consider to be generous to the defendants. Conclusions

[31]These were two appalling robberies, the first of which has had catastrophic consequences for the victim. We consider that the judge was entitled to take the view that he did on all the issues that arose at the sentencing exercise. If an offence warrants a custodial term for an adult offender of 8 or 10 years, then it will rarely be the case that a non-custodial term for a child or young person will be appropriate. In such cases, it will also be uncommon for the custodial term imposed on the child or young person to be less than 50 per cent of that appropriate for an adult.

[32]For those reasons, this application for permission to appeal against sentence is refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk