Attorney General Reference No 4 of 2004

In an Attorney General reference, a sentence for a planned, night-time aggravated burglary and robberies committed by a group armed with knives must reflect the terror caused to the occupants, the use of weapons and the absence of guilty-plea credit. Comparable sentencing authorities supported a sentence of about eight years.

When correcting an unduly lenient sentence, the court must nevertheless allow for double jeopardy and may take account of significant post-sentence mitigation. Those matters justified reducing the substituted sentence to six years’ imprisonment.

The offender was convicted at Kingston Crown Court of aggravated burglary and two robberies arising from a planned raid on an occupied flat. He and two others entered at night, threatened the occupants with knives, stole personal property and cannabis, and caused the occupants considerable fear.

On 12 December 2003, the Crown Court imposed four years’ imprisonment. The Attorney General sought leave under the unduly lenient sentence procedure to refer that sentence. The central issue was the proper sentence after allowing for the seriousness of the offending, double jeopardy and the offender’s post-sentence circumstances.

Disposition. The court granted leave to refer the sentence, held that four years’ imprisonment was unduly lenient, and substituted a sentence of six years’ imprisonment.

1. The offending was planned and involved three intruders who went armed with knives to an occupied flat at night. The offender threatened both occupants with a knife, including an attempt to slash one victim’s face. The seriousness of that conduct required a substantially greater sentence than that imposed.
2. The court treated Attorney General’s Reference No 35 of 2001 [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 44, R v Harrison [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 107, and R v Brady [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 410 as sentencing guidance. It agreed that, with no credit for a guilty plea, the appropriate sentence was in the region of eight years.
3. The court then gave weight to double jeopardy. It also took account of the offender’s loss of contact with his family, his positive progress in custody and an incident of conspicuous bravery. Those matters justified a reduction from the otherwise appropriate eight-year term, but no greater reduction than to six years.

The substituted sentence was therefore six years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). On the Attorney General’s reference, the court granted leave, found the four-year sentence unduly lenient and substituted six years’ imprisonment: [2004] EWCA Crim 1197.
• Kingston Crown Court. On 12 December 2003, the offender was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for aggravated burglary and two robberies.