Coutts, R v

In sentencing for robbery, a court may place the offence in the highest harm category where the offenders knowingly target a vulnerable victim and cause significant psychological harm. Premeditation, a joint attack, drug-related offending and a substantial criminal record are material aggravating features. Their combined weight may justify a sentence at the upper end of the applicable category range, or outside a lower range if the offence had been placed there. An appellate court will not interfere merely because a sentence is severe where it is not arguably excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester, to robbery committed with another offender against a vulnerable 69-year-old man after he withdrew money from a cash machine.

On 9 November 2017 the sentencing judge treated the offence as category 1B under the relevant sentencing guidance because it caused significant psychological harm. The judge adopted an eight-year starting point and, after a 25% reduction for the timing of the guilty plea, imposed six years’ imprisonment.

Following refusal by a single judge, the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal sentence. He contended that category 1B was wrong or that the sentence was too high within that range.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was refused. The court agreed with the single judge that the application was not arguable.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to classify the robbery as category 1B. Both offenders knew that the victim was vulnerable, and the robbery caused significant psychological harm. It was also a premeditated, calculated and cruel offence committed in broad daylight against a man returning to supported accommodation.

3. The aggravating features were substantial. They included the joint attack, the offenders’ drug addiction, the victim’s vulnerability and the applicant’s extensive criminal record. The applicant had also been assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm.

4. The multiplicity of aggravating features would have justified a sentence outside the category range even if a lower category had been selected. An eight-year sentence following trial, reduced by 25% to reflect the guilty plea, was severe but not arguably excessive. The court held that six years’ imprisonment was not excessive for this serious and calculated robbery.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused: [2018] EWCA Crim 1504.
• Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester The applicant pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on 9 November 2017.