Chapman, R. v

On an appeal against sentence, a severe custodial term will not be reduced unless it is manifestly excessive. The sentencing court may properly treat as substantial aggravating features the commission of further violent offences while on bail, a serious record of violent and acquisitive offending, and the risk of further specified offending. A comparison with sentences in earlier robbery cases will not assist where the offender’s record, the applicable reductions, or other material circumstances differ. The sentencing court must nevertheless take account of totality and guilty pleas.

The appellant, aged 18, was sentenced at Reading Crown Court on 28 February 2006 for two attempted robberies, racially aggravated assault by beating, and battery. The offences occurred on two separate dates. The later offences were committed while he was on bail for the first attempted robbery.

The judge imposed concurrent terms, producing a total of four years’ detention in a young offender institution. The appellant appealed by leave of the single judge, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the attempted robberies were less serious than completed robberies, and that an earlier robbery sentencing decision supported a lower term.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of four years’ detention in a young offender institution was severe but was not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to regard the offences as very serious. They comprised two attempted robberies and assaults committed on separate occasions. The later group of offences was committed while the appellant was on bail for the first attempted robbery.

3. The appellant’s substantial record of offences involving violence, robbery, attempted robbery and assault with intent to rob materially aggravated the sentence. The pre-sentence assessment also identified a high risk of reoffending and harm to the public. The sentencing judge was entitled to warn him of the future sentencing consequences if he committed another serious specified offence.

4. The comparison with Attorney General’s Reference No 28 of 2001 (Daniel Collins), [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 250, did not show excess. That offender had no similar previous convictions. The sentence in that case also reflected double jeopardy and a further reduction for time spent in custody.

5. The sentencing judge had taken account of totality and the appellant’s pleas. There was therefore no proper basis for appellate interference.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2006] EWCA Crim 1926.
• Crown Court at Reading: On 28 February 2006, His Honour Judge King imposed concurrent sentences totalling four years’ detention in a young offender institution.