Jones, R v

On a sentencing appeal, the question is whether the appellant’s own sentence was manifestly excessive. A disparity with co-offenders does not establish error where the sentencing judge has properly reflected relevant differences, including more serious previous convictions, by selecting different starting points.

A defendant who was under 21 when the offence was committed is a young offender. The custodial sentence must therefore be expressed as detention in a Young Offender Institution, rather than imprisonment.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton to robbery arising from a planned theft of cigarettes at a 24-hour shop. The robbery involved threats with a wrench, the restraint of a security guard and resistance during arrest.

The sentencing judge treated the offence as a category 2B commercial robbery. She adopted a six-year starting point for the appellant and, after 25 per cent credit for his guilty plea, imposed four years and six months’ imprisonment. His older co-defendants, who had serious previous robbery convictions, received slightly longer sentences.

The appellant appealed on the sole ground that insufficient account had been taken of the differences between him and his co-defendants. The court also considered the correct form of custody because he had been 20 when the offence was committed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sole appellate question was whether the appellant’s sentence was manifestly excessive. It was not.

2. The sentencing judge had been entitled to treat all three offenders as having played an equal role in the robbery. The appellant’s lesser record nevertheless had been reflected by a lower starting point. His co-defendants’ serious previous robbery convictions justified increasing their starting points beyond the applicable category range.

3. The six-year starting point for the appellant, at the top of the category 2B range, was justified by the threats, use of a weapon, treatment of the security guard and resistance to arrest. Applying the undisputed 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction produced a sentence of four years and six months which was not manifestly excessive.

4. The court affirmed the custodial term but corrected its legal characterisation. Since the appellant was under 21 when he committed the offence, he was a young offender and the sentence was one of detention in a Young Offender Institution, not imprisonment. The court stressed that the Crown must draw that matter to the sentencing judge’s attention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against sentence and corrected the form of custody to detention in a Young Offender Institution.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton The appellant pleaded guilty on 12 February 2016 and was sentenced on 8 July 2016 to four years and six months’ imprisonment for robbery.