Asare & Ors, R. v

A custodial sentence for blackmail is not manifestly excessive where an apparently debt-related demand develops into a planned and armed home intrusion. The sentencing court may treat as especially serious the use of masks, weapons and restraints, the intimidation and restraint of persons other than the debtor, and the lasting fear caused to victims in their home. The existence of a genuine overdue debt, youth, previous good character and early guilty pleas are relevant mitigation. They do not require a lower starting point where the overall conduct resembles robbery and is carried out in an organised, coercive manner.

Four young men pleaded guilty at Bristol Crown Court to blackmail. One appellant had lent the complainant £2,000 and repeatedly sought repayment. The four later went to the complainant’s home, where three wore face coverings and carried makeshift weapons and duct tape. They restrained the complainant and his parents and collected property from the house.

All pleaded guilty at the stage attracting full credit. The Crown Court imposed sentences between three years two months and three years eight months. Three appellants appealed with permission, and the fourth received permission at the hearing. The central issue was whether the judge’s starting point, and therefore the sentences, had been manifestly excessive.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to take an exceptionally serious view of this blackmail. The sentences, although heavy, were fully warranted and were not manifestly excessive.

2. The fact that a debt was genuinely owed, repayment was overdue, and requests had previously been made for payment was properly treated as mitigation. So too were the appellants’ youth, generally good character, supportive families and early guilty pleas. Those matters did not outweigh the gravity of the conduct.

3. The offence was properly viewed as much closer to robbery than theft. The appellants travelled together to the victim’s home at night. Three concealed their identities, and the group had weapons and duct tape. They restrained the debtor and his parents, assaulted and intimidated them, and collected valuables from the house. The victims’ fear and continuing distress were material aggravating features.

4. The judge was also entitled to take account of the limited remorse shown in the pre-sentence reports. The fact that violence was not initially intended, that the first entry was lawful, and that the physical injuries were minor did not undermine the seriousness of the planned coercive intrusion.

5. The court considered R v Conley (1989) 11 Cr App R(S) 541 and R v Greer and Greer [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 546. Their comparative assistance was limited because of the serious aggravating features of this offence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the four appeals against sentence.

• Crown Court at Bristol: The defendants pleaded guilty to blackmail on 14 March 2008. On 30 May 2008, sentences of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution ranging from three years two months to three years eight months were imposed.