Langley, R v

Where a robbery sentencing guideline requires the court to assess the presence, use and nature of a weapon, a sentencing judge must follow that direction under section 125 of the Coroner and Justice Act 2009, unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. A weapon may therefore be relevant to the seriousness of a robbery conspiracy although no separate firearms count is charged.

A driving disqualification may be imposed where the vehicle was used as a getaway car to remove stolen property and avoid apprehension or detection after the offence. Persistent previous failures to surrender to bail may justify an immediate custodial sentence within the applicable guideline range.

The appellant was convicted at Luton Crown Court of conspiracy to commit robbery, involving six robberies in which he acted as the getaway driver. He later pleaded guilty to failing to surrender to bail. He received eight years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy, three months’ imprisonment concurrently for the bail offence, and a five-year driving disqualification.

He challenged the use of weapon-related seriousness in sentencing where no firearms count had been charged, the custodial sentence for the bail offence, and the jurisdiction and duration of the driving disqualification. The central issues were the effect of the current Robbery Guideline and whether use of the getaway car supported disqualification for a conspiracy conviction.

Disposition

1. Leave to appeal was granted on the first and third grounds, but the appeal was dismissed. The eight-year sentence, concurrent three-month sentence and five-year driving disqualification were upheld.

2. Section 125 of the Coroner and Justice Act 2009 required the sentencing judge to follow the applicable Sentencing Guidelines Council Robbery Guideline unless that would be contrary to the interests of justice. The Guideline required the court to assess the use or presence of a weapon, including its nature and whether it was real. The judge therefore properly treated weapon use as relevant to the seriousness of the robbery conspiracy despite the absence of a separate firearms count.

3. The earlier authorities relied on by the appellant—R v Guy 93 Cr App R 108, R v McGrath 8 Cr App R 372, R v Eubank [2002] 2 Cr App R 4 and R v Murphy [2000] 3 Cr App R 39—predated the current Guideline and did not govern the sentencing exercise. The court noted, without deciding the wider question, that the Sentencing Council might consider the relationship between those authorities and the formerly accepted practice of charging a firearm separately.

4. The bail sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appellant had five previous convictions for failing to surrender to bail. That record was a serious aggravating feature, and three months’ imprisonment fell within the relevant guideline range.

5. The disqualification was valid under section 147(6) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Unlike the circumstances described in R v Terence Riley (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 33, the getaway car was used after the robberies to remove property and avoid apprehension and detection. The reasoning in R v Michael Devine (1990) 12 Cr App R 235 supported that conclusion. Section 146 also independently authorised disqualification in addition to sentence for the conspiracy, and five years was appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2014] EWCA Crim 1284, granted leave on two grounds but dismissed the sentence appeal and upheld the driving disqualification.
• Crown Court at Luton: On 29 November 2013, convicted the appellant of conspiracy to commit robbery. On 10 January 2014, after his guilty plea to failure to surrender to bail, imposed eight years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy, three months concurrently for the bail offence, and a five-year driving disqualification.