Attorney General's Reference No. 64 OF 2005

On an Attorney General’s reference, exceptionally serious offending involving armed robbery, kidnapping and a forced entry into a victim’s home may require an adult sentencing starting point well into double figures. Youth and a guilty plea may justify a substantial reduction, but personal mitigation must be assessed against the gravity and persistence of the offending. Where the Court of Appeal substitutes a higher sentence following a reference, it must allow for the offender’s double jeopardy.

A 19-year-old offender pleaded guilty to robbery, aggravated burglary and kidnap arising from a gunpoint street robbery followed by the forced removal of the victim to his family home and the robbery of his parents. He had relevant previous convictions for robbery and attempted robbery.

On 27 May 2005, the sentencing judge imposed four years’ detention. The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer that sentence. The central issue was the appropriate sentence for the offending after allowing for the offender’s age, guilty plea, mitigation and double jeopardy.

1. The reference was allowed. The court granted leave to refer the four-year sentence and substituted six years’ detention.
2. The offending fell within the serious category described in Atkinson and Clarke (1993) 14 Cr App R(S) 696. It involved threats of extreme violence during a street robbery, the victim’s forced transportation, and a raid on his family home. For an adult convicted after trial, it justified a sentence significantly into double figures.
3. The offender’s age and guilty plea justified reducing the sentence below that adult level. The court accepted that his difficult upbringing, efforts at education and other favourable material had been properly considered. However, his relevant previous convictions and the seriousness of the criminality meant that the guilty plea was the only really significant mitigation.
4. The court considered that eight years’ detention would have been the appropriate sentence at the original sentencing. It was nevertheless required to take account of double jeopardy in an Attorney General’s reference. Allowing for that factor and the other mitigation, it substituted a sentence of six years’ detention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, allowed the reference and substituted six years’ detention: [2005] EWCA Crim 2515.
• Sentencing court: on 27 May 2005 imposed four years’ detention for robbery, aggravated burglary and kidnap. The court is not stated in the judgment.