Attorney General Reference Nos 38, 39, 40 of 2007

A home robbery of lower violence which falls below the guideline range for violent personal robberies in the home is not to be treated as a street or commercial robbery. The street-robbery guideline may nevertheless provide a useful comparative starting point. A substantial increase is required to reflect the particular seriousness of offending in a victim’s home.

For unlawful-act manslaughter caused by a single, unforeseeably fatal punch, sentence must reflect both the offender’s culpability and the death caused. The usual guidance for a one-blow manslaughter does not determine sentence where the killing occurs during a planned robbery in the victim’s home. That context may justify a substantially higher starting point.

The Attorney General obtained leave to refer, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, sentences imposed on three offenders as unduly lenient.

All three had pleaded guilty to two robberies committed in the home of a 67-year-old victim. They entered together, threatened the occupants with an iron bar and a rolling pin, and stole electrical items. Crummack also pleaded guilty to manslaughter after one punch caused the victim’s death eight days later.

The sentencing judge imposed concurrent robbery sentences of two years and six months or two years and nine months, and a concurrent manslaughter sentence of three years and six months on Crummack. The common issue was whether those sentences properly reflected the gravity of the robberies and the manslaughter.

1. The references were allowed. The robbery sentences and Crummack’s manslaughter sentence were unduly lenient. The court substituted concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment for Campbell and Stell, and concurrent sentences of five years’ detention in a young offenders institution for Crummack. All substituted sentences took effect from 8 March 2007.

2. The Sentencing Guidelines Council’s range of 13 to 16 years for violent personal robbery in the home was directed to materially more serious violence. A robbery in the home which did not warrant that range did not fall within the street and commercial-robbery categories. The court could, however, use the category 2 street-robbery guidance by analogy. It assessed the comparable street offence at about five and a half years after trial for an offender without convictions, then added about two years or slightly more for the invasion of the victim’s home. The appropriate range was therefore seven to seven and a half years after trial for an offender without convictions, and eight to eight and a half years for these offenders in light of their individual aggravating features.

3. The aggravating features included the victims’ home, group offending, threatening weapons, the use of a prior association to gain entry, and the offenders’ records where relevant. The early guilty pleas attracted the full one-third credit already allowed. A small further reduction reflected double jeopardy arising from the Attorney General’s references.

4. For Crummack’s manslaughter, Furby [2005] EWCA Crim 3147 remained useful guidance on the need to match sentence to culpability where a single punch unexpectedly causes death. But its usual one-blow range did not address a killing committed during a robbery in the victim’s home. The proper starting point after trial, despite Crummack’s lack of convictions, was eight to nine years. Allowing for his plea, age and double jeopardy, five years’ concurrent detention was substituted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the Attorney General’s references under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and substituted increased concurrent sentences: [2007] EWCA Crim 1692.
• Sentencing judge: On 8 March 2007 imposed concurrent robbery sentences of two years and six months or two years and nine months, and a concurrent manslaughter sentence of three years and six months on Crummack. No citation was stated.