Robinson & Anor v R.

In assessing dangerousness, a sentencing court may take account of exceptionally reckless conduct committed in the course of a planned armed robbery and escape. A co-offender should not, however, be treated as responsible for dangerous driving merely by being a passenger where an accepted plea excludes the driving offence and the remaining evidence does not justify that conclusion.

A finding of dangerousness under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not automatically require imprisonment for public protection. The court must consider whether an extended sentence adequately protects the public, including when the future risk may cease. Where the prosecution evidence is overwhelming, a guilty plea at the first reasonable opportunity may properly attract 20 per cent rather than the full reduction.

The appellants pleaded guilty at Teesside Crown Court to robbery and possession of a firearm while committing a Schedule 1 offence. One appellant also pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicle taking; the corresponding count against the other was left on the file after his not-guilty plea was accepted.

The robbery involved a firearm which was unusable but appeared real to the security guards. During the escape, the driver engaged in an extremely dangerous high-speed chase. Both appellants received imprisonment for public protection with six-year minimum terms.

With leave initially confined to the minimum terms, both appellants renewed their challenges to the imprisonment-for-public-protection sentences. The central issues were whether each was dangerous and, if so, whether that disposal rather than an extended sentence was justified.

1. The appeals were allowed. The sentences of imprisonment for public protection were set aside. The court substituted a determinate sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for Jordan and an extended sentence of 16 years for Robinson, comprising 12 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat Robinson’s extremely reckless driving during the escape as material to dangerousness. In combination with the serious planned robbery, his previous robbery conviction and the pre-sentence assessment, it justified a finding that he was dangerous within the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

3. Jordan’s position was different. Although joint enterprise will ordinarily make participants answerable for conduct undertaken in its pursuit, his accepted not-guilty plea to aggravated vehicle taking meant that his presence in the car could not be used to establish dangerousness or to tip an otherwise insufficient case into that category. The robbery was very serious, but the remaining material did not justify the finding of dangerousness.

4. Having found Robinson dangerous, the judge should expressly have considered whether an extended sentence was the appropriate alternative to imprisonment for public protection. That required an assessment of when the risk to the public might cease. On the facts, an extended sentence sufficiently addressed public protection.

5. A 15-year starting point for the offending was appropriate. The court upheld a 20 per cent reduction for the guilty pleas because the prosecution case was overwhelming, notwithstanding that the pleas were entered at the first reasonable opportunity. The periods spent on remand were directed to count towards the substituted sentences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed both sentence appeals and substituted determinate or extended sentences for imprisonment for public protection.
• Teesside Crown Court: On 21 September 2009, imposed imprisonment for public protection on both appellants with six-year minimum terms.