Mohammed, R v

A robbery sentence should not be based on a sentencing starting point drawn from a materially more serious armed robbery where no firearm was used. Where related offenders have obtained reductions because of that error, the court may correct the sentence of an offender who pleaded guilty, particularly where its earlier indication created an expectation of equivalent reduction.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the robbery of a Securicor van carrying more than £350,000 and received ten years’ imprisonment. His two co-accused, who were convicted after trial, later succeeded in sentence appeals and received reductions of two years.

The appellant had abandoned his renewed application for leave to appeal. The court later refused to treat that abandonment as a nullity, but indicated that the resulting disparity should be drawn to the attention of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Commission referred the appellant’s sentence to the Court of Appeal.

The issue was whether the appellant’s sentence should be reduced in light of the error in using an armed-robbery authority as the sentencing starting point and the reductions granted to his co-accused.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the ten-year sentence and substituted a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.

2. The sentencing judge had taken account of R v Law [1998] 2 Cr App R(S) 365 in fixing the starting point. That authority did not provide an appropriate starting point for this robbery. It involved the use of a firearm, whereas no firearm of any kind was used here.

3. In the earlier appeals by the co-accused, the same error had led the court to conclude that their sentences were excessive and to reduce each by two years. The court accepted that the appellant’s age, effective good character and guilty plea were relevant, together with the absence of a firearm.

4. Most importantly, the earlier indication that the appropriate sentence was two years lower had created an expectation that the appellant’s sentence would receive the same correction. The fact that he had pleaded guilty did not justify leaving him with a longer sentence than the co-accused who had contested the charge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court allowed the appellant’s appeal against sentence and substituted eight years’ imprisonment: [2005] EWCA Crim 3500.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 11 October 2005, the court refused to set aside the appellant’s notice abandoning his renewed application for leave to appeal, but indicated that the disparity with the co-accused’s reduced sentences should be brought to the Commission’s attention.

• Crown Court at Leeds: On 14 August 2003, after the appellant’s guilty plea to robbery, the judge sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.