Eccleston, R. v

Sentencing guidelines must be considered, but their categories do not create rigid boundaries. Where a planned commercial robbery falls between, or outside, the descriptions used in the guideline, the sentencing judge may reflect that position and the aggravating features when selecting the appropriate range.

A failure fully to follow the guideline’s structure will not require appellate intervention where the resulting sentence is not manifestly excessive. For a serious, planned commercial robbery by young offenders, detention under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 91 may properly be imposed instead of a detention and training order.

The three appellants, each aged 17, pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and robbery arising from the same incident. They participated in a planned robbery of an Argos store, using disguises and force against the manager. The offenders sought access to the safe and CCTV controls, took five PlayStations, and were arrested while attempting to escape.

On 28 September 2007, the sentencing judge imposed three years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The appellants contended that the judge had misread the robbery sentencing guideline and that the sentences were excessive given their guilty pleas and ages. The central issue was whether the guideline error rendered the sentences manifestly excessive.

1. The appeals were dismissed. Although the sentencing judge had not fully followed the structure of the robbery guideline, the resulting sentences could not properly be criticised as manifestly excessive.
2. By section 172 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, courts must have regard to applicable sentencing guidelines. The robbery guideline did not, however, cover every form of robbery. Its distinction between less sophisticated and professionally planned commercial robbery was not rigid. Applying Attorney General's Reference Nos 32, 33 and 34 of 2007, [2007] EWCA Crim. 1375, a trial judge could properly regard a case as falling between those descriptions, or outside either description, and select a higher sentencing range accordingly.
3. The robbery was carefully planned. It involved three offenders inside the store, a further accomplice outside, disguises, violence and an attempt to obtain a substantial sum of money. Those were serious aggravating features. The judge was entitled to reject the submission that the offending involved only minimal force and to treat the features as sufficient to move the case to a higher guideline level.
4. The proper choice was between a detention and training order and detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. In light of the gravity and planning of the offence, three years’ detention was within the proper sentencing discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the three appeals against sentence: [2008] EWCA Crim 110.
• Sentencing court — on 28 September 2007 imposed three years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, following guilty pleas entered on 31 August 2007.