R v Christian Wittingham

On 20 June 2025 in the Crown Court at Southwark, the applicant, then aged 27, was sentenced on two indictments for offences of robbery and attempted robbery to imprisonment for a determinate sentence of 18 months and a consecutive extended determinate sentence of 13 years, comprising a custodial term of 9 years and an extended licence period of 4 years. Following refusal by the single judge, the applicant renews his application for leave to appeal his sentence.

The individual sentences were:

On indictment no. ending 4324, the applicant’s co-accused Mahad Jammeh and Tedros Haile were respectively sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment and 10 years’ imprisonment (plus 1 year on activation of a suspended sentence). On indictment no. ending 8624, the applicant’s co-accused Omar Hussain was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended.

Count 1: In the early hours of 25 June 2024, the applicant, Jammeh and Haile drove to Stratton Street, London W1 in a BMW motor vehicle. Wearing face coverings, they got out of the car and surrounded their victim, Michail Rivas. He was pinned to the ground and his Baroncelli moon phase chronograph watch was taken from him. The three men drove away in the BMW. The watch was worth £1000 and had been a gift from Mr Rivas’ parents.

Counts 2 and 3: In the early hours of the following day, the same three men and one other were driving around the Soho area of London. Just before 03.00 they saw two men, Oliver Wragg and Mark Jackson, walking back to their hotel after an evening out. They followed the men into an alleyway. Mark Jackson heard a shout from behind and was then hit with a hard object over the head. He was then punched to the face and body multiple times. He heard one of the accused say “get his watch” and another say “stab him in the face”. There was no evidence that any of them was in possession of a knife. They were unable to take Mr Jackson’s watch, a high-value Omega Sea Master, although he did not have it by the end of the evening (Count 3). Oliver Wragg was placed in a neck hold from behind and told to hand over his watch. He took it off and gave it to the group. His watch was valued at £600 (Count 2). He was left with bruising to his nose, eye and torso and scratches on his arms.

Count 2: Late in the evening of 14 July 2024 an off duty police officer, Steven Williams, have been out in central London with colleagues. In the early hours of 15 July, he took a cab home. CCTV footage showed the applicant, Hussein and one other followed the cab in their vehicle for some 30 minutes. As Mr Williams reached his home, the applicant approached him and said “gimme”. The applicant and Hussein then set about attacking him in an attempt to rob him of his replica gold coloured Rolex Submariner watch. Mr Williams successfully fought them off, telling them that he was a ‘fed’.

The applicant pleaded guilty to each of these offences. He had previous convictions for 23 offences between August 2015 and February 2020. In addition to many drugs offences, these included the two offences of possession of a bladed article in a public place (2018/2019) and two robberies committed in 2019. In February 2020 he had been sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 6 years 4 months for the robberies and thus was on licence at the time of these offences.

Mahad Jammeh was aged 24 at date of sentence. He had convictions for 14 offences between August 2016 and April 2023. These included one offence of attempted robbery (2016), 8 offences of robbery committed in June 2019 and one offence of robbery committed in July 2020. Tedros Haile was aged 35 at date of sentence and had convictions for eight offences between July 2007 and June 2024. These included one dwelling burglary in 2024.

In his sentencing remarks in respect of the applicant, the Judge concluded that the three offences on the first indictment each fell within culpability B and harm category 2 of the relevant sentencing guideline for street robberies. In each case this provided a starting point of 4 years custody and a category range of 3-6 years. He placed the offence in the second indictment within culpability B and harm category 3. This produced a starting point of 2 years custody and a category range of 1-4 years.

The Judge identified the aggravating factors as planned offences; targeting high-value goods; committed in a group; committed at night; in respect of Mr Rivas, with concealed identity; in respect of Mr Williams, committed outside his home; and involving gratuitous violence against Mr Jackson and a threat to stab him; and some violence against Mr Williams. The applicant’s offending was further aggravated by his previous convictions. In particular the two robberies committed in 2019 were likewise so-called Rolex robberies. Both victims had been put in a choke hold; with the consequence that one of them lost consciousness. The other was kicked and punched, leaving him with a broken nose. The applicant had then committed the present offences whilst on licence and whilst living in accommodation provided by the probation service.

As to mitigation, the Judge took account of the PSR which reported him describing these offences to the author of the report as “scumbag robberies”. He referred to the references in support of the applicant which demonstrated that for a period after his release from prison he had made genuine efforts to go straight through employment opportunities. However he had succumbed when he saw the lure of easy money. The Judge continued that “It is clear to me that you are somebody who wants more for himself than he can earn and you are quite happy to take what you want from others through violence rather than by working hard to better yourself”.

The Judge concluded that the applicant met the test of dangerousness, having regard to the history and the nature of these robberies. He observed “I feel that there is every risk that you will do it again and that you will seriously injure or even kill somebody, particularly if you carry on putting your victims in choke holds which is a very dangerous course of action indeed.”

As to totality, the Judge stated that he would reflect this by imposing concurrent sentences for the offences against Messrs Rivas, Wragg and Jackson; and by substantially reducing the sentence for the attempted robbery of Mr Williams.

Before identifying the sentences on the applicant, the Judge reminded himself of the sentences which he had imposed on his co-accused on an earlier occasion.

In respect of the first indictment, the Judge concluded in respect of each Count that the appropriate sentence if found guilty after a trial would have been 12 years imprisonment. With 25% credit for plea, this reduced to 9 years. Having made the finding of dangerousness, the Judge then concluded that it was necessary to impose an extended determinate sentence. For each Count, this resulted in an extended determinate sentence comprising a custodial term of 9 years and an extended licence of 4 years, in each case concurrent. This was to run consecutively to a determinate sentence of 18 months on the second indictment. Thus the total custodial term was 10½ years.

On behalf of the applicant, Mr Paul Lazarus takes no issue with the 18 month sentence imposed on the second indictment; nor the imposition of consecutive sentences as between the two indictments; nor to the Judge’s categorisation of the offences on either indictment.

The first ground of appeal is that the pre-credit sentence of 12 years on the first indictment was manifestly excessive; and in particular involved undue disparity with the sentences imposed on his co-accused Jammeh and Haile.

In respect of Haile, he had pleaded guilty to Count 1 and been found guilty after a trial on Counts 2 and 3. He was sentenced to a total of 10 years, comprising 2 years on Count 1 and 8 years consecutive, but concurrent to each other, on Counts 2 and 3. In respect of Jammeh, he had pleaded guilty to each of Counts 1-3 and received a total of 8 years imprisonment: Count 1 – 2 years; Counts 2 and 3; 6 years concurrent but consecutive to Count 1. Whilst accepting that the applicant had committed these offences when on licence for similar offences, there was no reason to differentiate between the relative starting points for each of the three defendants. Further, with all due weight for the aggravating factors, there was no justification for a starting point (12 years) which was three times the starting point (4 years) for a single category B2 offence of robbery.

The second ground of appeal is that the Judge was wrong to find the applicant dangerous or to impose an extended sentence. In particular (i) the offending had not resulted in really serious harm; (ii) it was wrong to conclude that the applicant posed a significant risk of the commission of further specified offences thereby causing serious harm to members of the public; (iii) there was no sufficient evidential basis for the Judge’s statement that there was every risk that he would do it again and seriously injure or kill someone; (iv) there was no evidence that he or any of his co-accused had been armed with a knife; and (v) the PSR did not conclude that the applicant posed a significant risk of causing serious harm ‘per se’; and there were indications that he had significant capacity to address the level of risk which he posed, for example through offender programmes to be undertaken during the course of the sentence. No reasonable judge could have concluded that the applicant met the dangerousness test.

Forcefully argued as they were, we are quite unpersuaded by either ground of appeal. As to disparity, we first remind ourselves that the essential test is whether the public, viewing the various sentences of the co-accused, would perceive that the appellant had suffered an injustice.

We see no arguable basis for any such conclusion. As to Haile, he had no relevant previous convictions. On Count 1, his sentence of 2 years was after 25% credit for plea; thus had a starting point of 2 years 8 months. His 8 year total, consecutive, sentence on Counts 2 and 3 was after a trial. Thus the overall starting point in his case was 10 years 8 months. In addition, 1 year of a suspended sentence was activated. As to Jammeh, he had many previous convictions for robbery but the Judge observed that they were of a lesser order of seriousness than the subject offences; that no serious harm was caused in any of them; and that he was much younger when they were committed. With 25% credit for his plea to all three Counts, his total sentence of 8 years reflected a starting point of 10 years 8 months. By contrast, the applicant’s case had the very significant aggravating factors of the similar type of robberies carried out by him in 2019; and the commission of the subject offences whilst on licence for these. There is no arguable disparity in respect of his starting point of 12 years.

As to the comparison with the category starting point of 4 years and the category range, the Judge was sentencing for three such offences. In all the circumstances, including the very significant aggravating factors, there is again no arguable challenge to the Judge’s ‘starting point’. On the contrary, it was fully justified.

As to the second ground, we likewise see no arguable challenge to the Judge’s conclusions that the applicant met the test of dangerousness and that an extended sentence was necessary. In addition to the very facts of the offending and their commission whilst on licence for the similar offences committed in 2019, the Judge’s evaluation had strong support from the assessment of the PSR that the applicant posed a high risk of causing serious harm to the public and a high risk of violent offending.

Accordingly the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.