Jenkins & Ors, R v

Professional armed robberies directed at cash custodians, involving loaded firearms and threatened or actual violence, merit sentences at the most severe level short of life imprisonment. Sentencing must nevertheless be consistent with comparable authority. On the material before the court, a trial starting point of 25 years was too high for the principal participant; about 21 years was appropriate.

The ultimate sentence must reflect each offender’s proved role, responsibility for weapons and violence, personal mitigation and guilty-plea credit. Reliable evidence of notably constructive conduct in custody may also be relevant on an appeal against sentence.

The three appellants appealed sentences imposed for their involvement in five planned armed robberies of security guards delivering cash to building societies in Kent. The robberies were carried out over about six months. They involved sawn-off shotguns, disguises, threats and, on one occasion, the discharge of a firearm at armed police.

Haines, who died at the final robbery, was the principal offender. Dean Jenkins acted with him in the first two robberies and as a getaway driver in later offences. Grehan acted as a secondary getaway driver and lookout. David Jenkins was involved in one robbery and had been acquitted of possessing a firearm.

The central issue was whether the sentencing judge’s 25-year starting point, and the individual sentences imposed, were excessive.

1. All three appeals against sentence were allowed. The offences were exceptionally grave. Planned robberies of cash custodians using loaded sawn-off shotguns expose participants to sentences at the highest level short of life imprisonment. The danger created by the principal gunman was a material feature of the offending.
2. The court held that earlier sentencing comparisons had to be treated consistently. Turner was no longer a reliable guide. McCartney and others [2003] EWCA Crim. 1372 and R v Atkinson and Smith [2005] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 34 showed both the seriousness of this form of robbery and the need for consistency. Although 25 years could mark the upper range for multiple armed robberies in which violence was used, it was too high as the trial starting point for Dean Jenkins. A starting point of about 21 years was appropriate.
3. Dean Jenkins’s total sentence was reduced from 17 to 15 years’ imprisonment. That reduction preserved the credit which the sentencing judge had allowed for his guilty plea and his lack of previous convictions.
4. Grehan’s lesser role, youth, previous good character and particularly strong evidence of constructive behaviour in prison made his 12-year total manifestly excessive. The court reduced it to 10 years’ imprisonment. Such reliable post-sentence evidence could properly be considered although it had not been available to the sentencing judge.
5. David Jenkins’s sentence was reduced from 10 to eight years’ imprisonment. He had no previous convictions, was not assessed as a risk to the public, and had been acquitted of possessing a firearm. His proved responsibility did not extend to the weapons and violence attributable to the other offenders.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2008] EWCA Crim 1372, the court allowed all three appeals against sentence and reduced each appellant’s sentence.
• Sentencing court: Its identity and citation are not stated in the judgment. It imposed total sentences of 17 years on Dean Jenkins, 12 years on Grehan and 10 years on David Jenkins.