Lawrence, R. v

Violent, planned smash-and-grab raids on jewellers’ shops fall outside the Sentencing Council’s guideline for street robbery, small-business robbery and less sophisticated commercial robbery. Their seriousness must instead be assessed by reference to the established approach to professionally planned commercial robbery.

Relevant aggravating features include planning, coordinated participation, targeting of jewellers, disguise, the use of weapons, substantial loss and the terror caused to those present. Sentences must nevertheless reflect each offender’s youth, previous convictions, guilty plea and personal mitigation, including significant intellectual limitations where they bear on culpability.

The three appellants pleaded guilty at Kingston Crown Court to offences arising from two planned daytime raids on jewellers’ shops. In each raid, offenders gained entry by deception, smashed display cabinets and stole jewellery. The first raid involved a firearm and a loss of about £150,000; the second involved a loss of about £10,000, later recovered.

Lawrence and Whittingham each received eight years’ imprisonment for robbery. Duncan received eight and a half years’ detention for conspiracy to rob. Each appealed on the ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive, relying on the gravity of the offending, his role, youth and criminal record. The central issue was whether the applicable robbery guideline governed these commercial raids and whether the individual sentences were excessive.

1. The appeals were allowed to the extent of reducing each sentence to seven years. Lawrence and Whittingham were to serve seven years’ imprisonment. Duncan was to serve seven years’ detention.
2. The sentencing judge had correctly treated the offences as falling outside Part 1 of the Robbery Guideline. That part addressed robberies at a wholly different and lower level of seriousness. These were violent smash-and-grab raids on jewellers’ shops, carried out in daytime with terrifying and ruthless determination. The established approach to professionally planned commercial robbery therefore remained applicable.
3. The court identified substantial aggravation. The robberies were planned, involved several offenders, deliberately targeted jewellers’ shops and, in the first raid, involved disguise and a firearm. The victims’ fear and psychological harm were also highly material. Although the escape arrangements were amateur, that feature did not reduce the offences to the category covered by Part 1 of the guideline.
4. Before personal mitigation, an appropriate sentencing range was 11 to 12 years. Proper credit then had to be given for youth, the absence of relevant previous convictions and guilty pleas. That produced a sentence of seven years for Lawrence and Whittingham.
5. Duncan should not receive a longer sentence than the other appellants. Although his offence was more serious and his plea was later, he was young and had significant intellectual limitations. Those limitations materially reduced his understanding of his conduct and its consequences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2011] EWCA Crim 2609, the court allowed the sentence appeals to the extent of reducing each appellant’s sentence to seven years.
• Kingston Crown Court: On 3 February 2011, Lawrence and Whittingham were each sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for robbery. Duncan was sentenced to eight and a half years’ detention for conspiracy to rob.