Shannon, R v

In sentencing for street robbery, the usual range is not a fixed cap. A sentence above three years may be justified where aggravating features substantially increase the offence’s seriousness or demonstrate heightened risk from the offender. Relevant features include a convincing threat of a weapon, the intimidating presence of an apparent accomplice, offending at night against a lone victim, and a serious record showing escalating dishonesty.

Those features may justify a substantial custodial sentence despite youth, drug addiction, the absence of physical injury, and a guilty plea entered only after the evidence became compelling.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Reading to robbery and to obtaining property by deception by using a bank card taken in the robbery. She had threatened to kill a lone woman walking home at night, claiming to have a knife, and had taken her handbag while a man was present.

The judge imposed concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment for robbery and one year for deception. He also took eight further theft and deception offences into consideration. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the overall term was manifestly excessive in light of street-robbery sentencing guidance, her youth, addiction, absence of injury, and guilty plea.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of four years’ imprisonment was amply justified and was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court applied the guidance in Attorney General’s Reference Nos 4 and 7 of 2002 (R v Lobban and Sawyers), [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 345. The usual range for street robbery was not confined to 18 months to three years. It could extend to five years or more where aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender warranted it.

3. This robbery was frightening. Although no weapon was produced and no physical injury was caused, the appellant made a convincing threat to use a knife and to kill the victim. The victim was alone at night and the presence of a man made the incident more menacing.

4. The appellant’s extensive and persistent record of dishonesty, repeated failures under supervision and custody, escalating offending, high likelihood of reoffending, and high risk of harm to the public materially aggravated the case. Her drug addiction and youth had been considered, but did not outweigh those features. A community disposal was unsuitable, and custody provided the only realistic controlled setting for treatment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed in [2005] EWCA Crim 156.
• Crown Court at Reading: On 1 July 2004, the appellant received concurrent sentences of four years for robbery and one year for obtaining property by deception.