Attorney General's Reference No. 24 AND 25 OF 2005

An armed attempted robbery of a vulnerable small shop, intended to put those present in fear, ordinarily requires a lengthy custodial sentence. Sentencing guidance that armed shop robberies will very seldom justify a term substantially below seven years remains relevant even where the weapons are not firearms. A reduction may reflect the lesser nature of the weapons and personal mitigation, including an early guilty plea, but it must still reflect deterrence, punishment and the protection of vulnerable premises.

The Attorney General referred the sentences of Gary Walker and Dean Walsh under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient.

At Chester Crown Court, each offender had received four years in custody after pleading guilty to attempted robbery of a small family-run sub-post office. They had approached wearing balaclavas and carrying a sledgehammer and an iron bar, used the sledgehammer to break the security screen, and demanded money. The attempt failed because the shopkeepers resisted.

The central issue was whether the four-year terms were unduly lenient despite the offenders’ mitigation and early guilty pleas.

1. The court granted leave for the reference and held that both four-year sentences were clearly unduly lenient. It substituted terms of six years’ custody: six years’ imprisonment for Walker and six years’ detention in a young offender institution for Walsh.

2. The court treated the guidance in Attorney General's Reference No 14 of 1991, (1991) 13 Cr App R(S) 446, repeated in Attorney General's Reference No 7 of 1992, 14 Cr App R(S) 122, as appropriate guidance. Armed robbery of small shop premises will very seldom warrant a sentence much below seven years. Its purposes are individual deterrence, general deterrence and punishment for putting people in fear of death.

3. Although the offenders did not carry firearms or imitation firearms, they were armed with a sledgehammer and an iron bar. Their weapons necessarily involved, and were intended to involve, putting the shopkeepers in fear. The unsuccessful outcome did not materially reduce the gravity of the offence, since it resulted from the steadfast resistance of the victims.

4. The court took account of Walker’s lesser record, personal mitigation, conduct in prison and apparent role in ending the attempt. It also considered Walsh’s age, his later consecutive sentence, and both offenders’ first-opportunity guilty pleas. Those matters justified some reduction from the seven-year guidance, but not the original terms. Vulnerable premises require the protection of the courts, and offenders who seek to rob them by inducing fear must expect long sentences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney General’s reference was allowed and the four-year custodial terms were replaced by six-year terms.
• Chester Crown Court: On 22 February 2005, Walker was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and Walsh to four years’ detention in a young offender institution for attempted robbery.