Attorney General's Reference No. 10 of 2005

Robbery involving a mobile telephone ordinarily requires a custodial sentence unless exceptional circumstances justify another disposal. That approach applies despite an offender’s youth or previous good character, although those matters may substantially affect the sentence length. A community order was unduly lenient for a planned and threatening robbery of a vulnerable victim where no exceptional circumstances existed. On an Attorney General’s reference, the court may take account of double jeopardy and completed community punishment when fixing the substituted custodial term.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery after pursuing a car containing a 17-year-old victim, threatening those in it while masked, and taking the victim’s mobile telephone. A related attempted rape was committed by the co-defendant after the offender had left the car.

Manchester Crown Court imposed a Combination Order comprising 80 hours’ community punishment and a two-year Rehabilitation Order. The Attorney General applied under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for leave to refer that sentence as unduly lenient.

The issue was whether the robbery, notwithstanding the offender’s good character, guilty plea and later compliance with the community order, required a custodial sentence.

1. Reference allowed. The court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held that the Combination Order was unduly lenient, quashed it, and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment from the offender’s surrender.

2. The robbery was serious. It was planned, committed at night against a vulnerable young woman, followed a high-speed pursuit, and involved a balaclava and gestures suggesting a weapon. The court accepted those aggravating features.

3. The court applied the sentencing policy in Attorney General’s Reference Nos 4 and 7 of 2002 (R v Lobban and Anothr), [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 345. Mobile-telephone robbery ordinarily calls for custody unless exceptional circumstances exist. The policy applies irrespective of the offender’s age and previous convictions, although those matters remain material to the length of sentence.

4. There were no exceptional circumstances capable of justifying a non-custodial sentence. The offender’s good character and guilty plea mitigated sentence but did not displace custody.

5. When selecting the substituted term, the court took account of double jeopardy, mitigation, and the offender’s completed 80 hours of community punishment. His compliance and excellent progress meant that 12 months was appropriate; without that post-sentence compliance, the term would have been longer.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, held the sentence unduly lenient, and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment: [2005] EWCA Crim 1594.
• Manchester Crown Court. On 4 January 2005, imposed a Combination Order of 80 hours’ community punishment and a two-year Rehabilitation Order for robbery.