Leacock & Anor, R. v

A sentencing judge may take account of evidence forming part of a separate count on which the defendant was acquitted, provided that the evidence is proved to the criminal standard and the finding does not contradict the jury’s verdict. Sentences for a jointly committed planned commercial robbery must reflect the degree of planning, aggravating antecedents and the respective roles of the offenders. An extended sentence requires an individual assessment of dangerousness; co-defendants should not be treated alike without adequate regard to material differences in their records and risk.

At Guildford Crown Court, Leacock and Samuels pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. They were acquitted after trial of having an imitation firearm with intent.

Each was then given a 12-year extended sentence, comprising nine years’ custody and a three-year extension period, for a planned robbery of a G4S security van. They appealed against sentence. The issues included the categorisation of the robbery, whether the judge could find that Leacock held a threatening object despite the acquittal, the proper disparity between the offenders’ sentences, and whether Samuels satisfied the dangerousness criteria for an extended sentence.

1. The appeals were allowed and the sentences varied. Leacock’s sentence was replaced by an 11-year extended sentence, comprising eight years’ custody and a three-year extension period. Samuels’s extended sentence was quashed and replaced with seven years’ custody.
2. A sentencing judge could consider evidence from the separate firearm count if satisfied of it to the criminal standard, provided the conclusion was not inconsistent with the acquittal. Applying Khan [2010] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 1, the jury’s verdict established only that the object was not a firearm or imitation firearm. It remained open to the judge to find that Leacock held another threatening object which increased the driver’s fear.
3. The robbery was properly treated as a planned professional commercial robbery. The acquisition of a car for the offence, the planned disposal of the cash box and the targeting of security vans showed organisation, although it was less sophisticated than some professional robberies. A starting point of seven to eight years was appropriate before the substantial aggravation arising from the offenders’ records and their being on licence. The original nine-year custodial terms were excessive after allowing proper credit for the guilty pleas.
4. The same sentence should not have been imposed on both offenders. Samuels played a lesser role, while Leacock had planned the robbery and made key preparations. Further, the judge had insufficient basis for treating Samuels as dangerous merely by placing him in the same category as Leacock. His antecedents did not justify an extended sentence, and a pre-sentence report would have been desirable before such a finding.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — appeals against sentence allowed: [2013] EWCA Crim 1171.
• Crown Court at Guildford — the appellants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob, were acquitted after trial on the separate imitation-firearm count, and each received a 12-year extended sentence.