Attorney General's Reference No 52 of 2004

On a reference under Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Court of Appeal may replace an unduly lenient sentence with one that properly reflects the offender’s criminality. In doing so, it must give credit for the double-jeopardy principle, because the offender is being sentenced again.

Planned robberies of occupied and vulnerable premises at night, involving disguises, weapons and terror to victims, may require a substantially higher custodial sentence than one imposed concurrently for each offence. Youth, guilty pleas, limited physical violence and remorse remain relevant mitigation, but do not prevent an increased sentence where the original total is inadequate.

The Attorney-General referred sentences imposed at Stafford Crown Court for being unduly lenient. The offender had pleaded guilty to four robberies, handling the proceeds of a further robbery, and two offences of possessing offensive weapons.

The robberies targeted occupied commercial premises at night. The offender acted alone or with others, used masks or hoods, and threatened victims with weapons. Significant cash and other property were taken. He had an extensive record and said that drug addiction had motivated the offending.

The Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences producing a total of five years’ imprisonment. The central issue was whether that total was unduly lenient and, if so, the proper substituted sentence after allowing for double jeopardy.

1. Reference allowed. The court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and held that the total sentence of five years’ imprisonment was unduly lenient.

2. The robberies were exceptionally serious in combination. They were planned and ruthlessly carried out at night at occupied, vulnerable premises. The offender used disguises and weapons to threaten victims, who were terrified, and he took substantial property. His extensive offending history also materially aggravated the sentence.

3. The court took account of the guilty pleas, the offender’s age, the limited physical violence and the remorse relied on for him. Those matters did not make the original total adequate. The court considered that a sentence of about eight or nine years would have been expected below.

4. The court gave effect to the double-jeopardy principle, since the offender was being sentenced again after the original disposal. It therefore quashed the robbery sentences of five, four and three years and substituted concurrent sentences of seven years’ imprisonment for each robbery. The sentences for handling and possessing offensive weapons were left unchanged and remained concurrent. The resulting total sentence was seven years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney-General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the Stafford Crown Court total of five years’ imprisonment to be unduly lenient and substituted a total of seven years.
• Stafford Crown Court: On 14 April 2004, a Deputy Circuit Judge imposed concurrent sentences totalling five years’ imprisonment for robberies, handling stolen goods and possession of offensive weapons.