Sheller, R v

A robbery which broadly falls within the Level 2 guideline category may nevertheless justify a severe sentence within the guideline range where cumulative aggravating features substantially increase its seriousness. Relevant features include planned group participation, disguises, knives, restraint and confinement of staff, and targeting premises likely to contain substantial cash.

A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because it is severe. The appellate question is whether it was wrong in principle or excessive in light of the offence as a whole.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Maidstone to robbery at Co-op retail premises. He and other masked men, armed with knives, forced staff to open safes, stole cash and goods, restrained one employee, and locked three employees in a room.

He received six years’ imprisonment. He appealed, contending that the robbery was within the Level 2 Sentencing Guidelines Council category and that mitigation, including his guilty plea, remorse, drug and alcohol relapse, lack of previous robbery convictions, and asserted compassion towards one victim, made the sentence excessive.

The issue was whether the six-year sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of six years’ imprisonment was severe but neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The robbery broadly fell within the Level 2 category identified in the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s guidelines. That category had a starting point of four years and a range of two to seven years.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the offence as materially aggravated. It involved several offenders, disguises, knives used to threaten staff, restraint and confinement of the victims, pre-planning, and the deliberate targeting of premises likely to contain substantial sums of money.

4. Those aggravating features justified the sentence notwithstanding the matters advanced in mitigation, including the guilty plea, remorse, previous good character evidence, lack of a prior robbery conviction, and the absence of physical injury.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against the six-year sentence.

• Crown Court at Maidstone The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery on 14 October 2008 and was sentenced on 9 April 2009 to six years’ imprisonment, with 256 days on remand directed to count towards sentence.