King, R v

In a sentencing appeal for robbery, the appropriate guideline starting point must reflect the offender’s criminal record and the seriousness of the particular offending. The court must assess such matters as force, threats, fear caused, value taken, planning, the number and roles of offenders, restraint of the victim, disguise, timing, vulnerability and intended gain.

A severe sentence will not be varied unless it is manifestly excessive. A sentence imposed on an offender under 21 must be expressed as detention in a Young Offender Institution rather than imprisonment; the appellate court may correct that formal irregularity without reducing its length.

The appellant, aged 21 when he pleaded guilty, was sentenced in the Crown Court at Nottingham to five years’ imprisonment for robbery, with concurrent sentences for common assault and possession of cannabis. The robbery involved two offenders, disguises, a large knife held close to a lone service-station manager’s face, threats to cut or stab him, and the theft of cash, cigarettes and phones.

He appealed with leave of the Single Judge. He submitted that the sentencing judge had adopted too high a starting point and had not allowed sufficient credit for his guilty plea. The central issue was whether the five-year sentence was manifestly excessive. A further issue arose because the sentence had been described as imprisonment although the appellant was under 21 when convicted.

1. The court dismissed the substantive sentencing appeal. The judge was entitled to treat the robbery as serious. The guideline’s four-year starting point was for a first-time offender, whereas the appellant had previous convictions and prior custodial experience.

2. The court accepted, for present purposes, that a one-third reduction for the guilty plea was appropriate. Even on that basis, the resulting five-year term was not manifestly excessive.

3. The seriousness assessment was supported by the force used, the knife threats, the fear caused to the victim and the value of the property taken. The court also identified a substantial accumulation of aggravating features: two offenders, the appellant’s dominant role, some restraint of the victim, planning, disguise, commission at night, a lone and vulnerable victim, and an intended substantial gain.

4. The sentence could properly be described as severe, particularly in the context of public concern about carrying and using knives. Severity did not make it manifestly excessive.

5. The court allowed the appeal only to correct the form of the sentence. Because the appellant was under 21 when convicted, the five-year term had to be expressed as detention in a Young Offender Institution, not imprisonment. The court substituted a five-year detention sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The substantive appeal against a five-year sentence for robbery was dismissed. The appeal was allowed only to substitute a five-year sentence of detention in a Young Offender Institution for the incorrectly expressed sentence of imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: On 12 September 2008, the appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for robbery, with concurrent sentences for common assault and possession of cannabis.
• Crown Court at Derby: On 24 April 2008, the appellant pleaded guilty to the three offences.