Tongue & Anor, R. v

Where relevant sentencing guidelines have been issued, they should ordinarily provide the principal framework for sentence. Earlier sentencing decisions should be cited only exceptionally.

For a planned robbery in which a weapon is produced to threaten the victim, aggravating features include multiple offenders, pre-planning and disguises. The sentence must reflect deterrence and protection of vulnerable small-shop staff, while preserving proper credit for guilty pleas, youth and the offender’s individual role.

Sentences for the robbery and the associated weapon offence must be structured so that their total is proportionate to the overall criminality and maintains fair comparison between co-offenders.

The appellants pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to robbery. Tongue also pleaded guilty to possessing an offensive weapon during that robbery, and to separate offences of burglary and going equipped for burglary. A third participant pleaded guilty to robbery.

The robbery was planned. Tongue entered a grocery store and sub-post office with Doyle, produced a knife, threatened the shopkeeper and took cash and stamps. Doyle did not use the knife, and it was accepted that he may not have known of it before it was produced.

The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence of eight years’ detention in a young offender institution on Tongue and five years’ imprisonment on Doyle. Both appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether those sentences properly reflected the applicable Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance, the aggravating features and the appellants’ differing roles.

1. The appeals were allowed to the extent of reducing the sentences. The court held that the sentences for Tongue’s burglary and going-equipped offences, namely 12 months’ detention, were unobjectionable. The aggregate sentence imposed for the robbery occasion was, however, too high.

2. The court gave primary weight to the Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance issued in July 2006. Once such guidelines have been issued, earlier sentencing cases should generally be cited only exceptionally. The guidance was more pertinent than the earlier authorities relied upon.

3. The robbery was serious. A knife was produced and used to threaten a lone shopkeeper, who feared for his life. The offence was pre-planned, involved more than one offender and was committed using disguises. Those were significant aggravating features. Deterrence and the protection of those working in small post offices and shops remained important sentencing considerations.

4. Tongue’s five-year sentence for robbery and two-year consecutive sentence for possessing the knife were to run concurrently. Together with the unchanged 12-month consecutive sentence for the separate burglary offences, his total became six years’ detention in a young offender institution. To maintain a fair comparison while reflecting Doyle’s lesser role and possible lack of prior knowledge of the knife, Doyle’s sentence was reduced from five years to four years’ imprisonment.

5. The existing directions for credit for time spent on remand remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeals against sentence in part and reduced Tongue’s total sentence from eight to six years and Doyle’s sentence from five to four years.
• Crown Court at Warwick: Sentenced Tongue and Doyle on 2 October 2006 following guilty pleas. No citation for the sentencing decision was stated.