Valentine, R v

For a planned campaign of robberies directed at vulnerable small shops, sentence must reflect the cumulative seriousness of the offending, the fear deliberately caused to staff, and the need to protect such businesses. The absence of weapons or physical injury does not prevent the campaign from requiring substantial custodial sentences.

The guideline range for a single robbery cannot justify a sentence that is plainly inadequate for numerous linked robberies. Credit for early guilty pleas, rehabilitation, youth and mental ill health remains relevant, but mitigation does not preclude correction of an unduly lenient sentence.

The Attorney-General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentences imposed on Daniel Valentine and Damien Jackson as unduly lenient.

Both offenders had pleaded guilty to a series of robberies and attempted robberies of small shops, together with associated vehicle offences. The robberies were planned, commonly involved disguises and demands for money, and caused considerable fear to shop staff. Valentine had received a total of three years and one month’s imprisonment. Jackson had received 18 months’ imprisonment and had been released on licence.

The central issue was whether the sentences sufficiently reflected a sustained campaign of robberies, notwithstanding guilty pleas and personal mitigation.

1. The Attorney-General’s references were allowed. The court gave leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and held that both sentences were unduly lenient.
2. The offending was a planned campaign against vulnerable small businesses. The offenders selected shops with limited security, used disguises, and created fear sufficient to secure compliance without weapons. Although there was little physical injury, the robberies caused shock and intimidation to staff. The court stressed the need to protect vulnerable shops.
3. The Sentencing Guidelines Council Definitive Guideline on Robbery indicated that a single robbery of a small business involving threats or minimal force could attract up to three years’ custody. That range did not make a three-year sentence adequate for Valentine’s numerous robberies. His previous dishonesty, offending while on licence, and the scale of the campaign required a substantially longer term.
4. The court allowed full credit for early guilty pleas. It also took account of Valentine’s constructive engagement with an offending-behaviour course, and of Jackson’s youth, mental ill health and progress in and after custody. Leniency in suitable cases was not discouraged, but it could not leave sentences plainly inadequate for this offending.
5. Valentine was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, with concurrent sentences on the robbery and vehicle counts. Jackson’s total sentence was increased to three years and six months, with concurrent sentences. In Jackson’s case, the court retained credit for 162 days spent on remand under section 240 and directed that service recommence upon his surrender to police.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney-General’s references under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the sentences unduly lenient and increased them.
2. Crown Court (Recorder): Valentine was sentenced to a total of three years and one month’s imprisonment. Jackson was sentenced to a total of 18 months’ imprisonment.