Beaney, R v

An appellate court will usually respect a sentencing judge’s assessment of dangerousness where the judge has applied the correct principles. A high-risk assessment in a pre-sentence report does not compel a sentence of imprisonment for public protection, particularly where the offender has no previous serious violence.

A planned and violent robbery of an elderly person in her home, following deliberate targeting, attracts a severe custodial sentence. Relevant aggravating features include the victim’s vulnerability, the invasion of the home, gratuitous violence, serious injury, valuable or sentimental property, and an escalating record of similar offending. A late guilty plea may reduce, but does not eliminate, the appropriate sentence.

The Attorney General referred, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed at Chichester Crown Court on 22 January 2010 for robbery.

The offender had targeted an 88-year-old woman who lived alone. He forced his way into her home, took her rings, punched her and caused a complex femur fracture. He had an extensive record and had admitted further burglaries involving the targeting of elderly people.

The sentencing judge rejected a dangerousness sentence but imposed five years after allowing credit for a late guilty plea. The central issues were whether that conclusion on dangerousness should be disturbed and whether the determinate sentence was unduly lenient.

1. Leave was granted and the reference succeeded. The court quashed the five-year sentence and substituted eight years’ imprisonment.

2. The sentencing judge had approached dangerousness according to principle. An appellate court will rarely interfere with such an assessment where the correct principles have been applied. Although the pre-sentence report assessed a high risk of serious harm, this was the offender’s first offence involving serious violence. The court therefore declined to impose imprisonment for public protection or an extended sentence.

3. The determinate sentence was nevertheless unduly lenient. The robbery was planned and targeted an elderly victim in her home. It involved gratuitous violence, serious injury, theft of rings of value and sentimental importance, and an offender with a long, escalating pattern of offending against elderly people.

4. Applying the relevant sentencing guidance, the appropriate starting point after conviction was eight years. The court treated Attorney General’s Reference 124 of 2008 [2008] EWCA Crim 2820 and Attorney General’s Reference No 55 of 2009 [2009] EWCA Crim 2689 as demonstrating that the applicable sentencing range had a midpoint of about eight years. It also applied the severe approach to attacks on elderly people in their homes stated in Attorney General’s Reference Nos 32 and 33 of 1995.

5. Absent a guilty plea, at least ten years’ imprisonment was appropriate. Giving credit for the late plea, the proper sentence was eight years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted the Attorney General leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted eight years’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Chichester: On 22 January 2010, imposed five years’ imprisonment for robbery after a late guilty plea.