Mayers & Ors, R. v

For a sophisticated and organised robbery targeting occupied homes, the applicable sentencing guideline is the guideline for robbery in a dwelling. Its highest category can accommodate substantial planning, high-value targets, physical injury and psychological harm. The stated reference to a sentence exceeding 13 years in a case of particular gravity is an error. It must be read as referring to a sentence exceeding the category maximum of 16 years.

Dangerousness under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226A requires an individual assessment of future risk. Collective culpability for a grave group offence cannot, without identified individual features, establish a significant risk of serious harm.

Ten appellants challenged sentences imposed after two trials arising from a planned group attack on an occupied travellers’ site. The offenders entered several homes at night, wearing disguises and carrying weapons. Victims were restrained, assaulted and left with physical and psychological harm.

At Maidstone Crown Court, five appellants received extended sentences after findings of dangerousness. The remaining appellants received determinate sentences. The appeals raised common questions about the applicable robbery guideline, the permissibility of sentencing above its range, individual culpability, and the assessment of dangerousness.

1. The appeals were allowed. The court quashed all the challenged sentences and substituted determinate sentences. Although the attack was exceptionally grave, the sentencing judge had wrongly treated all participants as equally culpable and had erred in the dangerousness findings.
2. The correct guideline was the robbery-in-a-dwelling guideline. The offence targeted occupied dwellings, notwithstanding its sophisticated planning and organisation. It fell within Category 1A. Its starting point was 13 years’ custody, with a range of 10 to 16 years. The reference in the guideline to a sentence exceeding 13 years for particular gravity was a drafting error. It had to be read as a reference to a sentence exceeding 16 years. The organised night-time attack on several homes, use of weapons and restraints, numerous victims including children, and serious psychological harm made this an exceptional and particularly grave case. A sentence above the range was therefore open where the interests of justice required it.
3. Dangerousness under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had to be assessed by reference to each offender’s own role, past behaviour, relevant convictions and personal circumstances. A pre-sentence report was not legally required, but its absence reinforced the conclusion that the judge had relied almost entirely on the index offence. The judge identified no individual features sufficient to show a significant future risk of serious harm. The extended sentences imposed on Danquah, Myers, Mayers, Alieu and Baker could not stand.
4. Individual participation in planning, reconnaissance, organisation and preparation was material to culpability. A late recruit’s role could not simply be disregarded. The court substituted: Danquah, 18 years; Myers, 18 years for conspiracy plus three years consecutive for possession of a disguised firearm; Mayers and Alieu, 16 years each; Jenks, Issah and Smillie, 14 years each; Miller, 13 years; and Baker, 12 years. Kenny’s sentence was reduced to nine years and four months after full credit for his guilty plea. The consecutive sentence for Myers’ unrelated firearm offence was proper under the totality guideline.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeals against sentence, quashed the extended and determinate sentences, and substituted determinate sentences.
• Maidstone Crown Court — following two trials, convicted the appellants of conspiracy to rob and sentenced them on 13 January 2017 and 19 January 2018. Myers was also convicted of possession of a disguised firearm.