Attorney-General's Reference No 72 of 2008

Robbery involving entry into a victim’s home ordinarily attracts a substantially higher sentence than comparable street robbery or robbery of small business premises. The increased seriousness reflects the violation and fear caused by an intrusion into the home, even without direct physical violence. Sentencing must also reflect aggravating features, including vulnerable occupants, intimidating accomplices, weapons and relevant previous robbery convictions. A guilty plea entered on the first day of trial merits only limited credit where witnesses have long expected to give evidence.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient a two-year sentence for robbery.

The offender, with two accomplices, forced entry into the home of a woman and her three children while pursuing a dispute with her partner. Two accomplices were masked and one carried a crowbar. The occupants were frightened, property was stolen and the offender later reinforced the threat by telephone. The offender had a relevant previous conviction for robbery and pleaded guilty on the first day of trial.

The issue was whether the Crown Court sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, the proper substituted sentence.

Reference allowed; sentence increased. The court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and held that the two-year sentence was unduly lenient.

1. The court applied the sentencing guidance derived from Attorney General's Reference Nos 38 to 40 of 2007 (Crummack), [2008] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 56, and restated in Attorney General's Reference No 124 of 2008 (Doran), [2008] EWCA Crim 2820. Intrusion into a complainant’s home significantly raises the appropriate sentence above that for street robbery, all other matters being equal. The most serious home robberies involving serious violence may properly attract sentences well into double figures.
2. This robbery was particularly grave. It was a planned and violent intrusion at night into a home known to contain a woman and children. The offender recruited masked assistance, one accomplice carried a crowbar, and the episode caused substantial fear and continuing distress. The offender also had a relevant previous conviction for group robbery.
3. The absence of direct physical violence and overt express threats did not reduce the intrinsic menace of the offence. The later telephone calls, indicating that the offender would return if unable to contact the woman’s partner, reinforced its threatening character.
4. The guilty plea was entered only on the first day of trial. It therefore justified limited credit only, not the one-third reduction available to an offender who admits guilt at an early stage and avoids the burden of contested evidence on complainants and witnesses.
5. After a trial, the appropriate sentence would have been in the general region of seven years. Allowing limited credit for the late plea and for the offender being sentenced again, the court quashed the two-year term and substituted five years and six months’ imprisonment. One hundred and sixty-one days already spent in custody were to count towards that term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted leave on the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted five years and six months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court: imposed two years’ imprisonment for robbery. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.