Attorney General's References Nos 52 and 53 of 2007 (Osman & Anor)

A robbery committed by a group in a victim’s home, involving threats, a weapon and violence, must be sentenced as a serious home robbery. It should not be assessed as an ordinary street robbery merely because it lacks planning or sophistication.

Guideline figures based on substantially more serious cases may have no direct application, although they may indicate the general seriousness with which robbery is viewed. On an unduly lenient sentence reference, the substituted sentence must reflect the proper level of sentence while making appropriate allowance for double jeopardy and, where there are multiple offences, totality.

The Solicitor-General sought leave to refer as unduly lenient the sentences imposed on Abdi Osman and Mohammed Hayir. Both had been convicted after trial of a robbery in which four men confronted the victim in his flat, threatened him with a screwdriver, demanded property and used violence. Osman had also pleaded guilty to two attempted robberies.

The Crown Court sentenced each offender to three and a half years for the robbery. Osman received concurrent six-month sentences for the attempted robberies, consecutive to the robbery sentence, making four years’ detention in total. The central issue was whether those sentences were unduly lenient and, if so, the appropriate substituted terms.

Disposition

The court granted leave and held that the sentences were unduly lenient. It increased Hayir’s sentence for robbery to five years’ imprisonment. It increased Osman’s total sentence to six and a half years’ detention.

1. The robbery was a serious robbery in the victim’s home. Four offenders acted together, a screwdriver was used to threaten the victim, and Osman used violence directed at the victim’s eyes. The court held that it had to be assessed on that basis, rather than as a street robbery.

2. The offenders’ previous robbery convictions materially aggravated sentence. Osman had also committed the robbery while on bail for two earlier robberies. The absence of greater injury did not remove the seriousness of the attack or the terror caused to the victim.

3. The court considered the authorities and the most recent robbery guidelines. The 13-to-16-year figure was based on much more serious cases and had no real relevance to this robbery or comparable robberies. It nevertheless reflected the generally serious view taken of robbery. The authorities indicated that the appropriate first sentence for the robbery was at least six years.

4. Allowing for double jeopardy, the substituted robbery sentence was five years for each offender. For Osman, the appropriate first sentence for each attempted robbery was two and a half years. Allowing for totality and double jeopardy, the court imposed concurrent terms of 18 months, consecutive to the five-year robbery sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Granted the Solicitor-General leave to refer the sentences, held them unduly lenient, and substituted increased sentences.
• Crown Court Following jury convictions for robbery, sentenced each offender to three and a half years. Osman also received concurrent six-month sentences for two attempted robberies, consecutive to his robbery sentence.