R v Harry Oluwasina [2026] EWCA Crim 594

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 594Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Friday 24 April 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE HOLGATEMR JUSTICE GARNHAMRECORDER OF LEICESTER(HIS HONOUR JUDGE TIMOTHY SPENCER KC)(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
HARRY OLUWASINA__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR P TUTT appeared for Appellant._________JUDGMENT
[1]On 14 May 2025 in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton, the appellant, Harry Oluwasina, changed his plea to guilty to an offence of robbery. On 14 August 2025, at the same court, before HHJ Barry Berlin, the appellant was sentenced to 46 months' detention in a young offender institution. He now appeals against sentence by leave of the Single Judge.

The facts

[2]At 6.16 pm on 11 June 2022, Ms Mandeep Kaur was working in Booze Land Stores in Bloxwich, Walsall, restocking the shelves at the front of the shop. The appellant (who was then aged 17) entered the store via the front door. He was wearing a balaclava and gloves. Ms Kaur immediately feared he was going to rob the store and ran to the back shouting for help. The appellant grabbed hold of her left arm and tried to pull her towards him but she managed to break free.[3]The appellant then pulled a large knife from the sleeve of his jacket and shouted "come here". Ms Kaur's screams alerted her colleagues who were upstairs. By the time they had come downstairs the appellant had made off in the direction of Bloxwich. One of Ms Kaur's colleagues called the police who arrived within 5 minutes. It subsequently transpired that the appellant had taken Ms Kaur's mobile phone, within the case of which was her debit card. The appellant had also taken a few boxes of cigarettes from the front of the store as he left.[4]At 8.11 pm that day a police officer was informed that Ms Kaur's bank card had been used at a Tesco supermarket in Walsall. An officer was subsequently made aware of the appellant's whereabouts and detained him on the basis that his description matched that of the person who had robbed Booze Land Stores earlier that day. When the appellant was searched by the police the officer found a bag of loose tobacco, a £20 PlayStation gift card and Ms Kaur's bank card. The appellant was arrested. It later transpired that Ms Kaur's bankcard had been used to pay for the gift card.[5]The appellant's address was searched the following day and next to the appellant's bed was a suitcase containing a large kitchen knife with a black handle, which was inside a plastic bag with a pair of gloves. A black balaclava was found in the drawer under the bed. None of the other stolen property has been recovered. Sentencing[6]The appellant was aged 17 at the time of the offence and 20 at sentence. He was of previous good character. In sentencing him the judge observed that this was not an opportunistic robbery, it was planned. He said:
"... you were disguised and you were armed with a knife and gloves; you targeted this lady and set out to rob her in what I see as a professional way. The bank card was then used to buy goods. The knife, balaclava and gloves, as I have said, were found in a suitcase... when your home was searched later."
[7]Applying the Robbery Guidelines he said that because there was the production of a bladed article to threaten violence, this case fell into culpability category A. He said that there was some serious ongoing psychological harm to the victim and the robbery had had serious financial effects on both the victim and the owner of the shop. The harm category was between 1 and 2, reflecting that harm. He adopted a starting point of 5 years 6 months.[8]He said there were statutory aggravating features in the value of the goods or monies targeted or obtained, there was significant planning, there were attempts to conceal identity and there was the serious impact on the business. As to mitigation, the judge noted the appellant had no previous convictions, had achieved some qualifications and had been in employment. He took into account the delay in the case being disposed of but said that some of that was down to the appellant. He noted the appellant's age of 17 at the time of the offence. To reflect his age he took two-thirds of his starting point bringing the figure down to 51 months. He then increased that to 55 months to reflect the fact that by the time of sentencing the appellant was an adult. He then allowed 15 per cent credit for plea, producing a final figure of 46 months.

Grounds of appeal

[9]On behalf of the appellant Mr Tutt argues that the total sentence of 3 years and 10 months' detention is manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. He submits that the judge adopted too high a starting point and that increasing the sentence by a further 4 months to reflect the fact that the appellant was an adult was unnecessary and disproportionate. He says insufficient weight was given to the applicant's extensive mitigation, in particular, his difficult and deprived background, his previous good character, his age at the time of the offence, the delay in bringing the case to trial, the absence of offending in the interim, his remorse, the steps he had taken to address his offending behaviour, the qualifications in childcare and English that he had achieved, the low-level risk he posed according to the Probation Service, and his plea.

Discussion

[10]We note that the prosecution and the defence agreed that this was a category A2 case with a starting point of 5 years but the judge said it fell between A1 and A2 and took a starting point of 5 years 6 months.[11]In our view, the proper starting point would have been 6 years 6 months or 78 months, a figure suggested by the judge but not then adopted. That figure properly reflects the psychological harm caused to Ms Kaur and the financial harm caused to the owner of the shop. We would point out that, if the harm caused to the shop owner is taken into account at this stage of the analysis, it cannot be considered again as a statutory aggravating feature.[12]The judge reduced the starting point by one-third to reflect the applicant's age at the time of the commission, and again we see no ground for criticising that. It was, if anything, generous to the appellant. However, having made that adjustment the judge then increased the sentence by 2 months to reflect that the applicant was now an adult. That was, in our judgment, entirely unjustified. The delay in getting the case to court would warrant a further modest reduction insofar as it was the fault of the prosecution rather the defendant, but his age at sentence cannot warrant an increase.[13]Furthermore, in our judgment, the appellant's personal mitigation did justify some further reduction. We have already cited what the judge took into account and, in our view, those were matters warranting a significant reduction. The judge allowed a discount of 15 per cent for his plea and we cannot fault that.[14]In our judgment, against that background, the proper calculation of the sentence is as follows. Starting point 6 years 6 months or 78 months. A reduction of one-third to reflect his age at the date of the offence takes that figure down to 52 months A further reduction for the other mitigation to which we have referred takes that figure down to 43 months. Allowing 15 per cent for plea, and rounding down, produces a final figure of 36 months, a reduction of 10 months on the sentence imposed.[15]Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and a sentence of 36 months in a young offender institution is substituted for the 46 months imposed below. 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