Langley, R. v

An appellate challenge to sentence is unarguable where the sentence is justified by the correct application of the relevant sentencing guideline, even if the sentencing judge reached the appropriate notional sentence by a different route. The overall sentence must also respect totality and remain proportionate to the gravity of the offending. Serious and lasting commercial consequences for a victim may justify a higher harm category.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Nottingham to two robberies and two associated offences of having a bladed article. Each robbery involved a convenience store, a large kitchen knife and efforts to conceal identity. The victims were traumatised, and the second robbery caused the shop to close, with consequential loss to its owner and employees.

On 6 July 2017, the applicant received consecutive sentences for the robberies and concurrent sentences for the bladed-article offences, totalling nine years and four months’ imprisonment. Following refusal by a single judge, he sought an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that the starting point was too high and that insufficient allowance had been made for totality.

1. The court refused the application for an extension of time and renewed leave to appeal against sentence. The proposed grounds were unarguable.

2. The sentencing judge had placed each robbery in category 2A of the relevant guideline and identified notional post-trial sentences before allowing full credit for the guilty pleas. Although the judge’s route to the sentence on Count 3 was incorrect, the offence properly fell within category 1A. The robbery had frustrated the owner’s intended sale of the business, caused its closure, deprived the owner of a retirement fund and led to employees losing their jobs. Those consequences justified the notional sentence after trial.

3. Accordingly, there was no arguable merit in the challenge to the sentence for Count 3. The consecutive sentence for Count 1 also respected the principle of totality. The aggregate sentence of nine years and four months was entirely proportionate to the gravity of the applicant’s offending, which included planned knife-point robberies, concealment of identity, vulnerable victims and relevant previous convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applicant’s renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, brought with an application for a 17-day extension of time after refusal by a single judge, was refused.

• Crown Court at Nottingham: On 13 June 2017 the applicant pleaded guilty to two robberies and two associated offences of having a bladed article. On 6 July 2017 he was sentenced to a total of nine years and four months’ imprisonment.