Bell, R. v

A sentence is unduly lenient where it falls outside the range which a judge, properly applying the relevant sentencing factors, could reasonably regard as appropriate. In a serious attempted robbery involving a bladed weapon, guideline categorisation, aggravating circumstances and the seriousness of the conduct must remain central to the sentencing exercise. Mental vulnerability, the effect of custody, rehabilitation prospects, time already served and a guilty plea are relevant mitigation. They may reduce the proper custodial term, but they do not justify a suspended sentence that fails adequately to reflect the offence’s seriousness.

The Attorney General referred, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence imposed on Alexander Bell at the Crown Court at Isleworth on 16 March 2018.

Bell had pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and possession of an offensive weapon arising from a night-time attack on a taxi driver with a bladed multi-tool. He was also sentenced for a series of theft, bladed-article and going-equipped offences committed while on bail. The sentencing judge imposed an overall term of 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, with rehabilitation and curfew requirements.

The reference raised whether that suspended sentence was unduly lenient in light of the robbery guideline, the use of the weapon, the aggravating features, Bell’s mental vulnerability, and his prospects of rehabilitation.

1. The court granted leave and allowed the Attorney General’s reference. The 24-month suspended sentence for attempted robbery was unduly lenient. It was outside the range which a judge properly applying the relevant factors could reasonably consider appropriate.

2. The attempted robbery properly fell within Category 2A of the robbery guideline. The use of the bladed weapon to threaten the taxi driver and inflict injury established high culpability. The harm was intermediate: it was neither serious physical or psychological harm nor no or minimal harm. The fact that the robbery was not completed did not reduce its proper categorisation, since completion was prevented by the victim’s resistance.

3. The court gave material weight to the aggravation. Bell committed the offence while on three sets of police bail. Two recent sets of offending also involved possession of a bladed article. The victim was providing a public service, the offence occurred at night in a deserted street, and the conduct showed planning. The sentencing judge had not adequately factored in the offences committed for sentence and those aggravating features.

4. Mental vulnerability affected both culpability and the impact of imprisonment, and the prospect of rehabilitation was relevant. The court also recognised the sentence already served for the separate offence committed on 3 July 2017. The asserted coercion afforded only limited mitigation and did not justify the pursuit of the victim with the blade.

5. A starting point of not less than four years’ imprisonment was appropriate. Credit for the guilty plea and time already served could properly reduce the term to three years’ immediate custody. The court took account of Bell’s compliance with the suspended sentence since March 2018, quashed the sentence on count 1, and substituted two years and 10 months’ imprisonment. The other sentences remained unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, quashed the suspended sentence for attempted robbery, and substituted two years and 10 months’ immediate imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Isleworth: On 16 March 2018, imposed an overall term of 24 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with rehabilitation and curfew requirements.