Rafferty v R

Where serious physical injury is caused in the course of a robbery, the offence may fall within the most serious relevant sentencing category even if the offender intended only less serious harm. Aggravating features include planning, multiple offenders, detention of the victim, offending at night, vulnerability, and participation with a co-offender whose capacity for violence was known.

For a dangerous offender aged under 18 at conviction, an extended sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226 is appropriate where it adequately protects the public from serious harm. Imprisonment for public protection is unnecessary in those circumstances.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to robbery. He was also convicted of manslaughter, for which the Crown Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection and no separate penalty for robbery.

The Court of Appeal quashed the manslaughter conviction in a separate judgment, Rafferty v R [2007] EWCA Crim 1846. It therefore had to sentence the appellant for robbery. The issues were the appropriate robbery category and term, whether he presented a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences, and whether an extended sentence was sufficient to protect the public.

1. Sentence imposed. Following the quashing of the manslaughter conviction, the court imposed ten years’ detention under section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This comprised a custodial term of seven years and an extension period of three years. The 265 days spent on remand were ordered to count towards the sentence.

2. The court excluded responsibility for violence occurring after the point identified in paragraph 30 of its earlier judgment quashing the manslaughter conviction. It nevertheless treated the appellant’s anticipated return to meet his co-defendants, while the victim was kept against his will, as part and parcel of the robbery.

3. The robbery was category 3 under the applicable robbery guideline. Serious physical injury had been caused during the robbery, although the appellant may have intended only less serious harm. The starting point was seven years, within a range of six to ten years. Planning, multiple offenders, detention and restraint of the victim, commission at night, vulnerability, the prolonged course of the offence, and the appellant’s knowledge of Taylor’s previous violence were substantial aggravating features. A sentence following trial would have been about ten years; the guilty plea reduced the custodial term to seven years.

4. The court reassessed dangerousness and found a significant risk to the public of serious harm through further specified offences within section 225. The current robbery, the earlier affray involving Taylor, the appellant’s knowledge of Taylor’s violent capacity, and the pre-sentence report justified that conclusion. Applying section 226, however, an extended sentence adequately protected the public. Imprisonment for public protection was not necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): After quashing the appellant’s manslaughter conviction in Rafferty v R [2007] EWCA Crim 1846, the court sentenced him for robbery.
• Crown Court at Swansea: The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and had pleaded guilty to robbery. The judge imposed imprisonment for public protection for manslaughter and no separate penalty for robbery.