Attorney General's Reference No. 10 of 2007

In assessing whether a sentence for robbery is unduly lenient, the court must assess the overall criminality. It should consider the fear deliberately caused, the use of an object as a weapon, actual violence, threats, the sustained nature of the conduct, and relevant recent offending. Mitigation, including an early guilty plea, youth and the absence of previous custody, must also be allowed for.

A sentence may be unduly lenient where it fails adequately to reflect the applicable robbery guideline and no sufficient reason is given for departing from its indicated range.

The Solicitor-General referred, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, sentences imposed on Michael John White at Peterborough Crown Court on 29 January 2007.

White had pleaded guilty to robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and driving with excess alcohol. He received concurrent sentences, producing a total of 10 months’ imprisonment.

The robbery involved confronting three 17-year-olds at night while carrying a towing eye, demanding money, taking a mobile telephone, assaulting its owner, and making a threat. The offender had recently received a non-custodial sentence for public violence. The issue was whether the total sentence was unduly lenient.

1. The court granted leave for the reference and held that the total sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment was unduly lenient.

2. The Recorder’s sentence did not adequately reflect the definitive robbery guideline issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The court noted that no particular reason had been given for imposing a sentence outside the applicable indicated range.

3. The criminality had to be assessed as a whole. The offender deliberately confronted harmless young people late at night after drinking and driving. He used a solid object to frighten them, stole a telephone, used violence against one victim, and ended the incident with a serious threat. The event was sustained despite being relatively brief, because he stopped his car twice and persisted despite his passenger’s warnings.

4. The court gave credit for the early guilty pleas, the offender’s age, and his lack of previous custody. Those features did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences, particularly given the recent conviction for public violence and the earlier non-custodial disposal.

5. The appropriate total sentence, allowing for the guilty pleas, was 18 months’ imprisonment. The reference therefore succeeded to that extent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Solicitor-General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held that the sentence imposed at Peterborough Crown Court was unduly lenient and substituted a total of 18 months’ imprisonment.
• Peterborough Crown Court: On 29 January 2007 imposed concurrent sentences for robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and driving with excess alcohol, resulting in a total of 10 months’ imprisonment.