Attorney General Reference No 135, 136 & 137 of 2004

On an Attorney-General reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, sentences for a planned armed robbery may be increased where they fail to reflect its seriousness. Relevant features include planning, vulnerable premises, multiple offenders, weapons, gratuitous violence and lasting psychological harm to the victim.

A violent or traumatic personal history may explain offending, but it will not ordinarily provide significant mitigation for serious deliberate violence. An appellate court substituting a higher sentence must nevertheless give credit for double jeopardy.

The Attorney-General referred as unduly lenient the sentences imposed at Southwark Crown Court on Kalemi, Sejdial and Dervishi for robbery and possession of a prohibited weapon. The robbery was planned. The three young offenders waited until a snooker club was empty, used a stun gun and a cosh against its sole staff member, stole about £1,600 and removed CCTV recordings.

Dervishi and Sejdial pleaded guilty on the day fixed for trial. Kalemi was convicted after trial. The sentencing judge imposed four years’ detention on Dervishi and Sejdial, and five-and-a-half years’ detention on Kalemi. The central issue was whether those sentences were unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

1. Leave was granted and the sentences were quashed. The robbery was carefully planned and targeted premises vulnerable to this type of offending. It was committed at night by three offenders armed with a stun gun and a cosh. The victim was subjected to gratuitous and excessive violence, including after he had collapsed, and suffered lasting psychological harm.

2. Those features required substantially longer sentences than those imposed below. The court considered that, after trial, a sentence of at least ten years’ detention would have been expected. A prompt guilty plea would have justified a sentence in the region of seven years. Given the very late pleas of Dervishi and Sejdial, the appropriate sentences below were nine years for each of them; following trial, the appropriate sentence for Kalemi was ten years.

3. The offenders’ difficult and traumatic backgrounds in Kosovo did not materially mitigate the sentences otherwise appropriate. Such a history might explain offending, but it did not significantly reduce the punishment for this serious conduct.

4. The court took account of double jeopardy when resentencing. It substituted eight years’ detention for Kalemi, and seven years’ detention for each of Sejdial and Dervishi. The court also treated the greater physical injuries in R v Evans ([2001] 1 Cr App R(S) 454) and R v Hooley & Ors ([2001] 2 Cr App R(S) 105) as a relevant distinction, but held that the present sentences remained unduly lenient.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, quashed the Crown Court sentences and substituted increased terms of detention: [2005] EWCA Crim 468.

2. Southwark Crown Court: Sentenced Dervishi and Sejdial to four years’ detention for robbery, and Kalemi to five-and-a-half years’ detention for robbery, with concurrent sentences for weapon offences.