Yeo, R v

Low-value shoplifting which is triable only summarily cannot lawfully be added as a theft count on a Crown Court indictment merely because it is related to indictable offences. Where the defendant has not elected Crown Court trial, the statutory procedure for related summary offences must be followed.

In sentencing a serious robbery, the court must give sufficient weight to reliable psychological and psychiatric evidence that materially reduces the offender’s culpability. A sentence may be excessive where the judge recognises that evidence but sets a pre-credit term which does not adequately reflect it.

The appellant pleaded guilty to six low-value shoplifting offences, robbery and possession of a bladed article. He was committed for sentence from the Plymouth District Magistrates’ Court. On 21 August 2019, the Recorder at Plymouth sentenced him to four years and eight months’ imprisonment for robbery, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.

Although leave had initially been granted to appeal against sentence, a technical issue was identified concerning the validity of the convictions for the six theft counts. The appellant therefore sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against those convictions. The central issues were whether the summary-only theft offences could lawfully appear on the indictment and whether the robbery sentence sufficiently reflected the appellant’s significant psychological and psychiatric vulnerabilities.

1. The appeals were allowed in part. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction on the six theft counts. Those convictions and their sentences were quashed. The offences were low-value shoplifting for the purposes of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, and were therefore summary-only unless the appellant elected Crown Court trial, which he had not.
2. The offences could be sent with the robbery and bladed-article charges as related offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That did not permit their inclusion as counts on the indictment. They did not satisfy section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and there was no legal power to add them to the indictment. The appropriate Crown Court procedure was that in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
3. Judge Picton was constituted as a Crown Court judge, re-arraigned the appellant on the theft charges, and accepted guilty pleas. A sentence of no separate penalty was endorsed on those charges.
4. The Recorder was entitled to categorise the robbery as category 2A and to treat its features, including the targeting of a lone shop assistant and use of a large knife, as serious aggravation. However, the psychological and psychiatric reports bore materially on culpability. The Recorder did not give them sufficient weight when selecting a pre-credit term of seven years. A term of about five and a half years before full credit for plea was appropriate. The sentence for robbery was therefore substituted with three years and eight months’ imprisonment. The remaining lawful sentences stood.
5. The court also endorsed the warning in R v Maxwell [2017] EWCA Crim 1233 that greater vigilance is needed to prevent procedural errors concerning low-value shoplifting from causing unnecessary delay, expense and use of court resources.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2019] EWCA Crim 2460, the court quashed the six theft convictions and their sentences, endorsed fresh guilty pleas with no separate penalty, and substituted a robbery sentence of three years and eight months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Plymouth — on 21 August 2019, the Recorder sentenced the appellant to four years and eight months’ imprisonment for robbery, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.
• Plymouth District Magistrates’ Court — committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence after his guilty pleas.