Rigby, R v

A sentencing court must have regard to the applicable definitive guideline. Where it departs from that guideline, it must give reasons. An early guilty plea may attract a reduction below one third where the evidence is overwhelming; a reduction of about 20 per cent may be proper.

In sentencing a Level 1 street robbery, the court must assess aggravating and mitigating features in the particular case. Vulnerability, multiple offenders, the time and place of the offence, and relevant convictions may aggravate seriousness. The guideline range and the appropriate guilty-plea reduction must then be applied so that the resulting sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to robbery after he and two co-defendants robbed an intoxicated and defenceless man in a public place. The appellant searched the victim's pockets and took his mobile telephone. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, with time on remand credited.

He appealed with leave of the single judge. He contended that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation, that the starting point was too high, and that the sentence did not comply with the Sentencing Guidelines Council's Definitive Guideline on robbery. The central issue was whether the three-year sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The three-year sentence was manifestly excessive. The court quashed it and substituted a sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment. The 120 days spent on remand, and the period already served, were to count towards that sentence.

2. By section 172(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, both the sentencing judge and the Court of Appeal were required to have regard to the relevant robbery guideline. A sentencing judge may depart from a guideline in an appropriate case, but section 174(2)(a) requires reasons for doing so. The court therefore proceeded on the basis that the definitive robbery guideline applied.

3. The offence fell within Level 1, involving the threat or use of minimal force. Its aggravating features were the victim's vulnerability, the three offenders acting against one victim, its commission at night and in a public place, and the appellant's previous convictions. Its mitigating features included its opportunistic and unplanned character, personal mitigation, remorse, and the guilty plea.

4. The Level 1 range extended to three years' custody for a first-time offender who had pleaded not guilty. The appellant's convictions could justify a sentence outside that range. However, the overwhelming evidence, including closed-circuit television footage, entitled the judge to allow a guilty-plea reduction of about 20 per cent rather than one third. A sentence at the top of the Level 1 range, reduced by that amount, produced the substituted sentence of two years and three months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2008] EWCA Crim 1195, allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the three-year sentence and substituted two years and three months' imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Liverpool: The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced on 26 February 2008 to three years' imprisonment.