Purcell v R

Violent personal robbery in the home is a sentencing category with its own seriousness. It should not invariably be assessed by taking a street-robbery sentence and adding a fixed increment. The court must reflect the violation of the home, the violence used, the victim’s vulnerability, the lasting loss of independence and the impact on the victim’s family.

Where those features are grave, a starting point within the Sentencing Guidelines Council range for violent home robbery may be justified. The overall seriousness does not normally depend upon whether the conduct is charged as robbery, burglary or an offence against the person.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Woolwich Crown Court to sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and to robbery. The sexual assault concerned a 16-year-old girl. The robbery involved a violent attack in her home on an 83-year-old widow, during which the appellant caused substantial physical injury and stole £1,500.

The sentencing judge found the appellant dangerous and imposed imprisonment for public protection for both offences. He specified a minimum period of five and a half years, less time spent on remand. The appellant appealed against sentence, principally contending that the minimum term was excessive by reference to Crummack [2008] 1 Cr App R (S) 56.

Disposition

1. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the finding that the appellant was dangerous and that imprisonment for public protection was appropriate. The five-and-a-half-year minimum period was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court held that violent personal robberies in the home have a seriousness of their own. It respectfully questioned an approach which, in every case, begins with the sentence for a street robbery and adds two years for the domestic setting. The sanctity of the victim’s home, recognised by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is a material feature. For an elderly victim, the enduring loss of independent living and the consequential burden on family members may greatly increase seriousness.

3. The present robbery was substantially more serious than the robberies considered in Crummack [2008] 1 Cr App R (S) 56. It involved severe and sustained violence, significant injury, a vulnerable elderly victim, persistence, a bad record and offending while on bail. The judge was entitled to select a starting point within, but not at the top of, the Sentencing Guidelines Council bracket of 13 to 16 years for violent home robbery. The approach in O’Driscoll (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 121, reflected in later cases, justified severity in such circumstances.

4. The overall seriousness did not normally depend on whether the conduct was charged as robbery, burglary or an offence against the person. Subject to totality, a consecutive custodial sentence for the sexual assault would have been appropriate. The sentencing judge had allowed for totality by making the sentences concurrent. As no separate minimum term had been stated for the sexual offence, the court imposed a concurrent minimum term of six months for that offence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) The appellant’s appeal against sentence was dismissed.

• Woolwich Crown Court The appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and robbery. Judge Norris imposed imprisonment for public protection for both offences, with a minimum period of five and a half years less time on remand.