Headlam & Ors, R. v

In sentencing for a concerted series of cash-in-transit robberies, the court should assess the full nature of the operation. Predetermined roles, group offending, targeted cash deliveries, efficient execution and the value sought may demonstrate planning and sophistication, even where no weapon is used. Cash-transit personnel are of low vulnerability, but deliberately targeting them remains an aggravating feature.

A person who drives the getaway vehicle or is present to support the robbery is as responsible as the person who takes the cash box. Such a role is not properly treated as peripheral mitigation. Sentences must nevertheless reflect individual mitigation, including a prompt guilty plea, youth and the offender's record.

Five appellants pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Blackfriars to separate robberies committed during a series of attacks on cash-in-transit personnel in south-east London. The conspiracies alleged against them were left on the file on the usual terms. The robberies involved groups who identified cash deliveries or collections, took cash boxes and then sought to open them before security alarms activated.

The sentencing judge imposed terms between five and seven years' custody or detention. The appellants appealed, with leave from the single judge, contending that their roles were subsidiary, the offending fell within lower guideline levels, and that insufficient allowance had been made for guilty pleas and personal mitigation. The central issue was whether the respective sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. The appeals were allowed in part. The sentences of Beckford, Hamilton and McFarlane were quashed and reduced. The appeals of Headlam and Cox were dismissed.

2. The court considered the Definitive Guidelines on Robbery. These offences did not fit neatly within the categories identified by the Guidelines, but were closest to less sophisticated commercial robbery. Their true seriousness had to be assessed in the context of a campaign of targeted cash-in-transit robberies, rather than as isolated opportunistic events.

3. Although there were no weapons and limited physical violence except in count 8, the offenders had predetermined roles and acted quickly and efficiently when a delivery appeared suitable. That showed clear sophistication. Group offending, planning and value were aggravating features. Deliberately targeting cash deliveries was also aggravating, although, consistently with Attorney General's Reference Nos 32, 33 & 34/2007 [2008] 1 Cr.App.R(S) 35, cash-transit drivers were of low vulnerability.

4. An offender who drove the getaway car or stood by to lend support was as responsible for the robbery as the person who physically took the cash box. The claimed subsidiary or peripheral roles therefore provided no mitigation on these facts.

5. The court upheld the starting points for Headlam and Cox, taking account of their relevant robbery records and applying section 143(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It reduced Beckford's sentence from five to four years because the starting point was too high. Hamilton's sentence was reduced from five years' detention to three and a half years because insufficient weight had been given to his youth and lighter record. McFarlane's concurrent six-year terms were reduced to concurrent four-year terms in light of his good character, employment history and mitigation. Credit for time on remand under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 continued to apply to the appellants whose sentences were substituted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2008] EWCA Crim 2578, the court dismissed the appeals of Headlam and Cox, but reduced the sentences imposed on Beckford, Hamilton and McFarlane.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: The appellants pleaded guilty to specified robberies. On 4 February 2008, Judge Pillay imposed custodial sentences or detention and made remand-credit orders under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.