Hamilton & Anor, R v

In sentencing for a planned series of kidnappings and robberies, the court must reflect the exceptional gravity created by repeated attacks on lone and vulnerable victims. A guideline framed for single offences may provide little assistance where the offending is a sustained series.

Sentences should also differentiate between offenders according to their respective roles. An important participant may merit a substantial sentence, but a lesser role than that of the ringleader, together with relevant personal mitigation, must be properly reflected.

The appellants pleaded guilty at Birmingham Crown Court to five offences of kidnapping and five offences of robbery. Each received concurrent sentences of ten years’ imprisonment. The offences formed a planned series in which lone women were forced into their cars, threatened and robbed of property, bank cards and money withdrawn using their PINs.

O’Connor was the ringleader and the offender who subdued the victims in the rear of the cars. Hamilton used cards and PINs at cash machines, while Blake drove. Hamilton also asked for further offences to be taken into consideration and relied on evidence of low intelligence and suggestibility.

The appellants appealed against sentence, contending that their lesser roles and mitigation had not been adequately reflected.

1. The appeals were allowed to the extent of sentence. The concurrent ten-year sentences were quashed and concurrent sentences of eight years’ imprisonment were substituted.

2. The offending was gravely serious. It was a carefully planned and professionally executed series of kidnappings and robberies directed at lone, vulnerable women. The victims were forced into their cars, intimidated into disclosing PINs and deprived of personal property. The physical injuries were not the most serious, but the emotional and psychological distress was substantial.

3. The Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance gave little assistance because its categories addressed single offences. The aggravating feature here was the repeated and similar offending against vulnerable victims.

4. Nevertheless, the apparent starting point of about fifteen years’ imprisonment after a not-guilty plea was too high for these appellants. O’Connor’s ten-year sentence after his guilty plea was justified because he was the ringleader and personally subdued the victims. Hamilton and Blake performed important roles, but their roles were less important than O’Connor’s. Hamilton’s low intelligence and suggestibility were also relevant mitigation.

5. An eight-year concurrent sentence on each count was the proper sentence for each appellant.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2008] EWCA Crim 542, allowed the sentence appeals to the extent of substituting eight-year concurrent sentences.
• Birmingham Crown Court: On 3 September 2007, the appellants pleaded guilty to five counts each of kidnapping and robbery. Each was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment concurrent on each count.