Hussain & Anor, R v

A campaign of moped-enabled handbag robberies may properly be sentenced under the guideline for street and less sophisticated commercial robberies, even where offenders stole mopeds, altered registration numbers and acted with some planning. The decisive distinction is whether the offending remains, in substance, street robbery rather than professionally planned commercial robbery.

In assessing a reference for an unduly lenient sentence, the court must stand back and appraise the whole criminality. It must account for totality, youth, previous offending and the substantial length of an extended sentence. A sentence may be lenient without being unduly lenient.

The Solicitor General referred the extended sentences imposed on Karim Hussain and Mickelle Alexander as allegedly unduly lenient. Hussain also sought leave to challenge his sentence as manifestly excessive.

Following trial at Croydon Crown Court, Hussain was convicted of robberies, theft and fraud, and Alexander of further robberies, attempted robberies, thefts and fraud. The offences formed a campaign of moped-enabled street robberies, principally targeting lone women. Victims were dragged to the ground, threatened with knives or injured, and stolen bank cards were used fraudulently.

On 3 August 2018, the Crown Court imposed extended sentences of 15 years on Hussain and 17 years on Alexander. The central issues were the applicable robbery guideline, dangerousness, totality and whether the sentences were unduly lenient.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was dismissed. Hussain’s contention that his sentence was manifestly excessive was rejected. The sentences were substantial and, although on the lenient side, were not unduly lenient.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to use the Definitive Guideline for street and less sophisticated commercial robberies. The offenders had planned the campaign, stolen mopeds and altered registration numbers. Nevertheless, the offending remained a paradigm of street robbery and was not sophisticated commercial robbery. Its circumstances materially differed from Attorney General's Reference (Kelly) [2016] EWCA Crim. 750.

3. The most serious robbery attributable to Hussain involved dragging a 70-year-old victim to the ground and fracturing her shoulder. It fell within high culpability and serious-harm categories. Alexander’s most serious robbery involved a victim being stabbed by his accomplice. Considered individually, the offences warranted sentences in the region of eight years and at least 10 years respectively.

4. The judge was entitled to find Hussain dangerous and to impose an extended sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The error in the pre-sentence report which wrongly linked him to the stabbing count did not vitiate the report. The repeated offending and the remaining material supported a finding of significant risk of serious violence.

5. The court gave weight to the numerous offences, their terrifying character, the use or threatened use of knives, the absence of guilty-plea credit and the need for deterrence. It also gave weight to totality, the absence of previous offending of comparable kind or seriousness, and the offenders’ ages of 19 and 20. Applying a stand-back-and-appraise approach, the custodial terms of 12 and 14 years within the extended sentences did not justify intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on a reference under section 36 and Hussain’s sentence challenge, dismissed the reference and rejected the assertion that Hussain’s sentence was excessive: [2018] EWCA Crim 2550.
• Crown Court at Croydon — after trial, imposed extended sentences on 3 August 2018 of 15 years on Hussain and 17 years on Alexander.