Attorney General's Reference No. 66 OF 2005

A robbery of a small shop or other vulnerable premises ordinarily requires a custodial sentence substantially higher than six months, even after credit for an early guilty plea. The assessment must reflect injury to the victim, the vulnerability of staff and premises, and relevant previous convictions. Voluntary binge drinking does not reduce the need for a sentence that reflects the public consequences of ensuing criminal conduct.

Where a sentence is unduly lenient on an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Court may quash it and substitute the appropriate sentence. It should nevertheless allow for double jeopardy when fixing the substituted term.

The offender pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to robbing a shop. While heavily intoxicated, he struck a shop assistant on the head with a chip-and-pin machine, threw chocolate bars at him and took a display of lottery scratch cards, which he abandoned. The victim sustained a laceration but suffered no lasting consequences.

The offender was 19 at the time, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and expressed remorse. He also had previous convictions, including two for minor violence. The Crown Court imposed six months’ imprisonment.

The Attorney General sought leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The central issue was whether the six-month sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, what substituted sentence was appropriate.

1. The reference was allowed. The six-month sentence was unduly lenient. The court granted leave, quashed that sentence and substituted 15 months’ imprisonment from the original sentencing date.

2. Earlier Attorney General’s references showed that robbery of small shops and vulnerable premises attracts a sentence substantially higher than six months, including where there is a guilty plea. The present offence was less serious than the usual case involving a pretended firearm, but it remained a serious robbery.

3. The aggravating features were the injury caused, the victim’s vulnerability as a shop assistant working at night with only one colleague present, and the offender’s binge drinking. The mitigating features were his age, early guilty plea and remorse. His previous convictions, including for violence, also required weight.

4. The court took account of the observations in R v Rees and others [2005] EWCA Crim 1857. Excessive voluntary drinking can lead to serious criminal behaviour, and sentencing must reflect its consequences for the public.

5. The appropriate sentence at first instance would have been at least two years’ imprisonment. Allowing for all the circumstances, including the double jeopardy inherent in an Attorney General’s reference, the substituted sentence was 15 months’ 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 sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted 15 months’ imprisonment: [2005] EWCA Crim 2445.
• Sheffield Crown Court — The offender pleaded guilty to robbery on 10 May 2005 and was sentenced on 6 June 2005 to six months’ imprisonment.