Attorney-General's Reference No.16 of 2007

A person who repeatedly supplies disguised stolen vehicles knowing that they will enable armed robberies is guilty of conspiracy to rob, but sentence must reflect the person’s actual ancillary role. Where the supplier is neither an instigator nor an organiser, a sentence after trial will ordinarily be materially lower than that for the principal robbers. For four such supplies, a proper bracket was five to six years’ imprisonment, normally nearer six years.

A plea entered only on the first day of trial attracts less credit than a prompt plea. On an Attorney-General’s reference, the court should interfere only where the sentence is sufficiently below the proper range; leniency alone does not suffice.

The defendant supplied four previously stolen vehicles, fitted with false registration plates and, in one instance, altered windows. The vehicles were used in planned robberies of post offices and Securicor vans. The robbers used weapons on at least three occasions, although they were not caught.

On the first day of trial, the defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob. He accepted that he supplied vehicles knowing that they would be used in robberies involving threats with weapons. The sentencing judge imposed three and a half years’ imprisonment.

The Attorney General sought leave to refer that sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The central issues were the proper sentence for this ancillary role and whether the sentence was unduly lenient.

1. Disposition. The court gave leave for the reference and varied the sentence from three and a half years’ to five years’ imprisonment.
2. A supplier of stolen and disguised vehicles, knowing that they will be used to facilitate robberies, is as guilty of conspiracy to rob as those who carry out the attacks. That legal liability does not require identical sentencing. Sentence must reflect the offender’s true role.
3. An ancillary participant may sometimes be an instigator, organiser or substantial recipient of the proceeds. Such a participant may deserve a sentence equal to, or greater than, that imposed on the robbers. There was no allegation that this defendant held such a role. He was an ancillary supplier, but he supplied vehicles on four occasions for offenders whom he knew would commit armed robberies.
4. Robbers responsible for these offences, if convicted after contested trials, could generally have expected about ten years’ imprisonment. The court accepted the comparison with Attorney-General’s Reference (No 52 of 2004) R v Chilton [2004] EWCA Crim 2768, while recognising that its robberies were more serious. For the defendant’s repeated ancillary conduct, the proper post-trial range was five to six years, normally nearer six years.
5. The plea was entered late and merely accepted the case that the Crown had consistently advanced. It therefore attracted less reduction than a prompt guilty plea. A sentence of three and a half years fell outside the available range. Although not every lenient sentence justifies intervention, this sentence was sufficiently below the proper level to require correction. The substituted sentence was five years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney-General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court gave leave and varied the sentence to five years’ imprisonment: [2007] EWCA Crim 1229.
• Sentencing court: Its identity and citation were not stated in the judgment. It imposed three and a half years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to rob.