Preos, R v

For a guilty plea entered only on the first day of trial after a sustained denial of involvement, a sentencing judge may properly allow a limited reduction. The availability of a hearing to resolve disputed facts means that late disclosure affecting the factual account does not necessarily justify a larger discount.

In sentencing street robbery, the applicable guideline range must be assessed against the offender and the full circumstances. Material aggravating features may include planning, acting in concert against a lone victim at night, violence used in an attempted escape, relevant similar offending, and conduct intended to evade identification. A sentence within the proper guideline band will not be varied merely because another sentence was available.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to robbery on the first day of his trial. He also admitted breach of an 18-month conditional discharge imposed for attempted theft. The Recorder imposed 21 months’ imprisonment for robbery and a consecutive three months for the breach, making 24 months in total.

He appealed with leave of the single judge. The challenge concerned the robbery sentence. It initially alleged that the 12½ per cent credit for plea was too low and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The plea-discount ground was not pressed before the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the robbery sentence fell outside the proper sentencing range.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to limit the reduction for the guilty plea to 12½ per cent. Until the first day of trial, the appellant denied participation despite overwhelming evidence. He could have pleaded guilty earlier and, if necessary, contested the factual circumstances at a separate hearing. Even a plea at the first opportunity would have attracted no more than a 20 per cent reduction on these facts.

2. The sentence of 21 months for robbery was not manifestly excessive. The street-robbery guideline gave a 12-month starting point and a range up to three years for minimal-force robbery after trial, but proceeded on the basis of a first offence.

3. The Recorder was entitled to treat the case as materially aggravated. The offence was planned and committed by two men against a lone victim on the top deck of a night bus. The appellant used violence while seeking to escape after the theft. He had convictions with similar features, was not youthful, gave a false name after arrest, and sought to evade the consequences of his conduct.

4. The additional guidance in Attorney General’s Reference Nos 4 and 7 of 2002, [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 77, supported the conclusion that the pre-plea starting sentence of 24 months was within the proper sentencing band. No challenge was made to the consecutive three-month sentence imposed for the breach of the conditional discharge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the robbery sentence was dismissed.

• Crown Court at Southwark: On 2 March 2009, the appellant was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for robbery and three consecutive months for breach of a conditional discharge.