Greaves, R v

An extended sentence for robbery may be justified where the offender presents a significant risk of causing serious harm through further specified offences. The assessment may properly take account of a pre-sentence report, serious previous violence and an established pattern of acquisitive offending.

Under the robbery guidelines, force causing injury places an adult offence in category two. Grave aggravation, including a targeted attack on a very vulnerable victim near the victim’s home, may justify a sentence at or beyond the ordinary category range.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Doncaster of robbing an 87-year-old man outside his sheltered accommodation. He punched the complainant, took his wallet and caused injuries. The appellant had a substantial record of theft, burglary, violence and robbery, and was under probation supervision when he offended.

On 27 November 2008, the Recorder imposed an extended sentence under section 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: seven and a half years’ custody and a three-and-a-half-year extended licence period. The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to impose an extended sentence. Robbery was a specified offence, and the relevant question was whether the appellant posed a significant risk of causing serious harm through further specified offences.
2. The finding of dangerousness was justified. The pre-sentence report assessed the risk of serious harm as high. It was open to the judge to rely particularly on the appellant’s earlier conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his infant daughter and a robbery in which the victim suffered a broken jaw. Although those convictions were old, they remained relevant when viewed with his established offending pattern and current risk of reoffending.
3. The court applied the Sentencing Guideline Council’s robbery guideline. The use of force causing injury placed the offence in category two, for which the adult starting point was four years’ custody and the stated range was two to seven years. The ordinary range did not exhaust the sentencing assessment.
4. There were grave aggravating features. The complainant was 87, lived in sheltered accommodation and was targeted by a cynical request for water. The attack occurred immediately outside his home and caused an undoubted loss of confidence. The appellant’s recent dwelling-house burglaries and the fact that he remained under supervision further aggravated the offence.
5. The court treated Attorney General’s References Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of 2007 (R v Campbell), [2007] EWCA Crim 1692, as the most helpful sentencing comparison. Its guidance on aggravated category two home robberies supported the conclusion that neither the seven-and-a-half-year custodial term nor the three-and-a-half-year extended licence period could properly be criticised.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal: [2009] EWCA Crim 379.
• Crown Court at Doncaster The appellant was convicted of robbery on 16 October 2008. On 27 November 2008, the Recorder imposed an extended sentence under section 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.