Khan, R v

Under the Sentencing Council Robbery Definitive Guidelines, the categories of less sophisticated commercial robbery and professionally planned commercial robbery cover a spectrum of planning, sophistication and organisation. The court must assess the overall character of the offending. A robbery may fall within the professionally planned category where it involved significant preparation, allocated roles, weapons, disguise, a planned escape and selection of a vulnerable commercial target, even if its execution was amateurish.

Where an offence lies near the boundary between guideline categories, a sentence near the lower end of the more serious category may be appropriate. The weight given to previous good character and personal mitigation is ordinarily a matter for the sentencing judge’s discretion. Alleged coercion does not mitigate without relevant supporting evidence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to conspiracy to commit robbery and possession of an offensive weapon. He and two co-accused had planned an armed robbery of a bank. They used knives and hammers, attacked two staff members, and attempted to escape in a vehicle whose number plate had been altered. The Recorder imposed eight years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution for the conspiracy.

The appellant appealed his sentence. He contended that the robbery should have been classified under the less sophisticated commercial robbery guideline rather than as a professionally planned commercial robbery. He also relied on his good character, personal circumstances and alleged pressure from co-defendants. The central issue was whether the categorisation and resulting sentence were wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to classify the offence as a professionally planned commercial robbery, albeit at the lower end of that category.
2. The two relevant robbery categories cover a wide spectrum. Degree of planning is relevant under both classifications. The proper exercise is therefore an evaluative assessment of the degree of planning, sophistication and organisation shown by the facts.
3. The offending involved considerable preparation. The defendants bought weapons, gloves and matching clothing, disguised themselves, altered the getaway vehicle’s number plate, allocated roles and selected an open-plan bank whose staff were vulnerable. They acted together, armed with weapons capable of causing grave injury, and sought to rob a commercial target believed to contain substantial cash. These features justified the Recorder’s conclusion despite the relatively unsophisticated and amateurish execution.
4. The court also stood back and assessed the totality of the sentence. The case was close to the boundary between the guideline ranges, but a starting point of 13½ years was proper. The final eight-year term properly reflected mitigation, including the early guilty plea and the appellant’s previous good character.
5. The Recorder had addressed the appellant’s personal circumstances and his role. The extent of any further allowance was within the sentencing discretion. There was no relevant evidence of coercion or pressure capable of amounting to mitigation, particularly given the appellant’s active armed role and ownership of the getaway vehicle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2017] EWCA Crim 440.
• Central Criminal Court — Following guilty pleas, the appellant was sentenced to eight years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution for conspiracy to commit robbery. No separate penalty was imposed for possession of an offensive weapon.