Moore v R

An offender may satisfy the dangerousness condition even if he did not personally use violence. A person who knowingly acts as a getaway driver in a planned armed robbery is a party to the robbery and to its risk of serious harm to the public.

Dangerousness is fact-sensitive and requires an assessment of both the likelihood and gravity of future harm. Imprisonment for public protection is appropriate only where neither a determinate sentence nor an extended sentence provides adequate public protection.

Moore v R appealed against sentences imposed in the Crown Court at Manchester for conspiracy to commit robbery, possessing a firearm with intent to commit robbery, and handling stolen goods. He received imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of seven years and nine months for the principal offences.

The planned robbery involved a security-van cash delivery, stolen getaway vehicles, disguises and a loaded firearm with a sound moderator. Moore was to drive a getaway car. He had previous convictions for serious robberies and committed the present offences while on licence.

The appeal challenged the finding of dangerousness, the decision to impose imprisonment for public protection rather than an extended sentence, and the starting point and guilty-plea discount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

1. The statutory dangerousness condition did not require proof that Moore would personally inflict serious injury. A participant in a joint enterprise to commit a violent robbery commits that offence. A getaway driver is an essential participant in an armed robbery and shares the risk of serious harm occasioned by its commission.

2. Dangerousness is fact-sensitive. It requires a judgment about the likelihood and scale of future harm. The absence of actual serious harm in Moore’s earlier robberies did not assist him. The victims’ compliance with threats of violence could explain why harm had not materialised. His repeated involvement in serious, planned robberies, including while on licence, justified the finding of dangerousness.

3. The Court distinguished Brooks [2009] EWCA Crim 367. That case involved a less sophisticated robbery, a comparatively lightly convicted offender, and no knowledge by the appellant of the knife used by another participant.

4. The Court accepted the principle in Attorney General’s reference (No. 55 of 2008) [2009] EWCA Crim 655 that imprisonment for public protection is appropriate only if a determinate or extended sentence would be inadequate. The sentencing judge had considered an extended sentence and gave sufficient reasons for rejecting it. He was entitled to differ from the pre-sentence report’s assessment.

5. There was no basis to interfere with the 17-year starting point or the one-twelfth discount for the late guilty plea to conspiracy. The appellant’s role was important, the offences were grave, and he contested the firearm offence despite knowing that proof of it would materially increase sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2011] EWCA Crim 1988, dismissed Moore’s appeal against sentence and upheld imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of seven years and nine months.
• Crown Court at Manchester: His Honour Judge Goldstone QC sentenced Moore on 2 September 2010 for conspiracy to commit robbery, possessing a firearm with intent to commit robbery, and handling stolen goods.