Cummings, R. v

For robbery sentencing, a case cannot properly be placed in the lowest harm category where the victim suffered more than minimal psychological harm or the business suffered more than minimal detriment. A sentencing judge may assess those matters in their practical setting, including a lone shopkeeper's vulnerability, the threatening conduct of a co-offender, and the value of cash and stock taken.

Where culpability and harm place the offence in the applicable guideline category, a sentence based on its stated starting point, with proper credit for a late guilty plea, will not be interfered with unless it is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery after entering a newsagent and off-licence with two other people. While one co-offender threatened the lone shopkeeper with a bottle, the group stole cash, alcohol, cigarettes and car keys. The appellant accepted stealing items but denied using force or threatening violence.

On 17 August 2016, Recorder Kovats QC sentenced her to three years and seven months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge treated the offence as a joint-enterprise robbery, assessed culpability as category B, and placed harm above the lowest guideline category.

The appellant appealed her sentence by leave of the single judge. The central issue was whether the harm should instead have been treated as category 3, on the basis of no or minimal psychological harm and no or minimal detrimental effect on the business.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The sentence of three years and seven months’ imprisonment was upheld.

2. The Recorder was entitled to treat the robbery as a joint-enterprise offence. The appellant and her co-offenders entered together, distracted the shopkeeper, and stole property while one of them wielded a bottle in a threatening way. The category B culpability assessment was not challenged.

3. The Court rejected the contention that harm fell within category 3 of the Sentencing Council’s definitive robbery guideline. The shopkeeper was alone late in the evening, was vulnerable to attack, and was frightened and shaken by the incident. Those circumstances supported a finding of more than minimal psychological harm.

4. There was also more than minimal detriment to the business. The offenders took £1,400 in cash as well as stock and other property. The Recorder was therefore entitled to place the offence in category B2 and to use the four-year starting point.

5. The Recorder gave the correct reduction for the appellant’s late guilty plea. Her persistent offending record and the apparent influence of drugs or alcohol did not render the resulting sentence unduly aggravated. The sentence properly reflected the offence’s categorisation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 28 March 2017, the court refused the sentence appeal: [2017] EWCA Crim 457.
• Sentencing court: On 17 August 2016, Recorder Kovats QC sentenced the appellant to three years and seven months’ imprisonment for robbery.