Lawlor, R. v

Ram-raiding is not governed mechanically by a single sentencing guideline. Its gravity depends on the form it takes, including whether it is an attack on property alone or a planned robbery which deliberately exposes staff or the public to shock, fear and danger.

A sophisticated bank ram-raid robbery involving stolen vehicles, disguises, a vehicle used as a weapon, substantial planning and a large theft properly falls within the robbery, rather than burglary or theft, sentencing comparisons. Sentencing authorities provide broad guidance only. They must not be treated as an arithmetical scale. A severe sentence within the range indicated by comparable serious commercial robberies will not be manifestly excessive where it reflects those aggravating features.

At Coventry Crown Court, James Lawlor was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery after trial. Craig Smith pleaded guilty to the same offence, but received reduced credit because his asserted basis of plea was not accepted. Lawlor was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and Smith to nine years’ imprisonment.

The conspiracy involved a planned attack on a bank after closing time while its cash machine was being replenished. A stolen car was driven twice into the bank front. Masked accomplices took cash boxes containing £108,000 while staff were present. Both appellants appealed against sentence, contending that the sentences were manifestly excessive and that the case should have been assessed by reference to burglary ram-raids.

The central issue was the proper sentencing category and level for this planned commercial ram-raid robbery.

Decision

1. The court dismissed both appeals against sentence. The sentences of 12 years for Lawlor and nine years for Smith, allowing for Smith’s guilty plea, were severe but not manifestly excessive.

2. The court corrected a material factual error which had initially been made in the appeal materials. The sum stolen was £108,000, not £1,008. The correction was made within minutes of the court’s initial indication that a limited reduction might be appropriate. Dismissing the appeals therefore imposed sentence on the true factual basis and did not punish the appellants for their counsel’s delay in identifying the error.

3. Ram-raiding cannot be placed neatly within a single guideline. R v Byrne ((1995) 16 Cr App R(S) 140) remained apposite as to its inherent gravity. The court also accepted the guidance in R v Hibbert ([2008] EWCA Crim 1854) that serious ram-raid robbery may fall between less sophisticated commercial robbery and an armed cash-delivery robbery.

4. This was properly charged as conspiracy to rob. It was timed for the replenishment of the cash machine and therefore for the presence of bank staff. It was not a night-time burglary of empty premises. The court rejected the submission that no weapon was used: the car driven into the bank was a weapon.

5. The relevant aggravating features were the careful planning, stolen and professionally used vehicles, several offenders, masks, speed and shock, the deliberate creation of fear, the appellants’ records, and the theft exceeding £100,000. It was wrong to use the authorities as a mechanistic calculation. Nonetheless, the burglary or theft cases suggested a different and lower category from the robbery cases. The latter, illustrated by R v Hibbert and R v McCaffery and McCaffery ([2009] EWCA Crim 54), supported a trial-sentence range of roughly 10 to 15 years, assessed in light of the higher sentencing levels noted in R v Thomas ([2011] EWCA Crim 1497).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appellants’ sentence appeals.

• Crown Court at Coventry — Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery on 20 February 2012; Lawlor was convicted of that offence on 15 March 2012. On 16 March 2012, Lawlor received 12 years’ imprisonment and Smith nine years’ imprisonment.