Ali, R. v

In sentencing robbery, the applicable guideline range and starting point must be assessed alongside the offender’s antecedents and the particular aggravating and mitigating features of the offence. A substantial criminal record and a risk of reoffending may justify a sentence above the starting point. However, the court must also give proper weight to limited violence, the absence of aggravating features such as disguise, spontaneity, and genuine remorse shown by self-reporting and full admissions. A sentence is manifestly excessive where it gives insufficient effect to those mitigating features.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court to robbing a small shop. He pushed the manageress, causing bruising, took £130 from the till, and escaped. Two days later he contacted the police, waited to be arrested, made full admissions and apologised.

The sentencing judge imposed four years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed by leave of the single judge, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive despite his extensive previous convictions and drug-related risk of reoffending.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of varying the sentence. The sentence of four years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. It was replaced with a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment.

2. The definitive robbery guideline gave a range of two to seven years’ custody and a starting point of four years for a first-time offender who robbed a small business using force that caused injury. The appellant’s extensive record, including earlier robbery convictions and more recent violence, justified treating his case as more serious than that starting point. His drug habit and unwillingness then to address it also indicated a significant risk of reoffending.

3. Those aggravating matters did not determine the appropriate sentence. The robbery lacked features sometimes present in small-business robberies, particularly disguise. The violence was confined to a push, rather than a more serious assault, and the offending was spontaneous.

4. Most importantly, the appellant voluntarily contacted the police, waited to be arrested, made full admissions and apologised. The court treated that conduct as powerful evidence of remorse and regret. Giving proper weight to all the circumstances, including the full credit already allowed for the guilty plea and cooperation, required a reduced custodial term. The appellant remained subject to the applicable licence provisions on release.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted two years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Leicester: Following a guilty plea to robbery, imposed four years’ imprisonment on 5 February 2008.