Attorney-General's Reference No 10 & 11 of 2009

Robbery offences which deliberately target elderly or otherwise vulnerable people in their homes demand severe punishment. A sentencing court must account for the planned and repeated nature of the offending, the use or threat of force, the victims’ vulnerability, and the serious psychological harm caused by an invasion of the home. Lesser physical violence does not reduce the gravity where threats and terror secure compliance from elderly victims.

A participant in a conspiracy to rob remains responsible for its violent features even if he did not personally use force. A guilty plea and personal mitigation may reduce sentence, but they cannot make an otherwise plainly inadequate sentence appropriate.

The Attorney General referred, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, sentences imposed at Oxford Crown Court on Rooney and O’Connor for conspiracy to rob.

The conspiracy involved a series of robberies and distraction burglaries directed at elderly householders. The offenders used deception to enter homes, and in several incidents used violence or threats of violence. Rooney was convicted after trial. O’Connor pleaded guilty on an accepted basis that limited his participation to 5 July 2007 and denied personal use of force.

His Honour Judge Compston sentenced Rooney to five years’ imprisonment and O’Connor to three years’ imprisonment. The common issue was whether those sentences were unduly lenient.

1. The Attorney General’s references were allowed. The sentences were unduly lenient and fell far short of the severe punishment required for this offending.

2. The court applied the established principle that attacks on elderly people in their homes are especially grave. Elderly victims are vulnerable because of their age, weakness, isolation and lack of immediate assistance. The planned selection of elderly householders, the repeated home invasions, threats and occasional violence, and the offenders’ propensity for similar offending were all substantial aggravating features.

3. The absence of extreme physical violence did not materially reduce seriousness. The victims were deliberately selected because threats and limited force could terrorise them into submission. The court also gave weight to the enduring psychological consequences. Given the victims’ age, the consequences of the offending could have been fatal.

4. Rooney’s claim that he was merely the driver was rejected. The trial evidence supported the conclusion that he was one of the three men who entered the victims’ homes. O’Connor’s lack of personal violence did not remove his responsibility as a knowing and willing participant in a conspiracy whose robberies involved violence or threats of violence.

5. Having considered the mitigation, including O’Connor’s guilty plea, the court held that a catalogue of offences of this gravity would ordinarily attract a double-figure sentence after a contested trial. Rooney’s sentence was quashed and replaced with 10 years’ imprisonment. O’Connor’s sentence was quashed and replaced with six years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On Attorney General’s references under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court allowed the references, quashed the original sentences and substituted sentences of 10 years’ and six years’ imprisonment: [2009] EWCA Crim 1636.
• Oxford Crown Court: His Honour Judge Compston sentenced Rooney to five years’ imprisonment and O’Connor to three years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to rob.