Bright, R. v

On a reference under Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence may be merciful and fall outside the robbery guideline range, yet the Court of Appeal may decline to increase it where the sentencing judge obtained and considered detailed evidence of the offender’s serious personal difficulties and rehabilitation prospects. Subsequent evidence of exemplary engagement with mental-health, addiction and supervisory support may justify leaving such a sentence undisturbed. That course is exceptional. It does not indicate that further anti-social or criminal conduct will receive similar leniency.

The offender pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Taunton to robbery after demanding money from shop staff while apparently carrying a knife. He was subject to a community order and had previous convictions, including possession of bladed articles.

The judge treated the offence as Category 3A under the guideline for street and less sophisticated robbery. He imposed two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with rehabilitation and supervision requirements.

The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The central issue was whether the sentence should be increased despite the offender’s unusual conduct, mental-health and substance-misuse difficulties, and subsequent rehabilitation.

1. Leave was granted, but the sentence was not varied. The court concluded that the sentence was plainly lenient and possibly unduly lenient. Before credit for the guilty plea, the appropriate custodial term should have exceeded three years; after full credit, it should have exceeded two years.

2. The sentencing judge had correctly identified Category A culpability because the offender used an article perceived as a knife to threaten violence, and Category 3 harm. The guideline range was three to six years’ custody. The offender’s prior convictions, commission of the robbery while subject to a community order, late-night offending, and intoxication were aggravating features. The court nevertheless accepted that the unusual nature of the offending could reduce its seriousness. The bandanna was not aggravating on these facts, because the offender’s conduct showed no real attempt to conceal his identity.

3. The court declined to increase the sentence. The judge had carefully obtained a pre-sentence report and psychiatric evidence before selecting an exceptional, rehabilitation-focused sentence. A later report showed that the offender had engaged positively with mental-health, drug and alcohol services and had accepted responsibility for the risks arising from his instability. Increasing the sentence would undermine the opportunity for rehabilitation that the judge had deliberately provided, to the offender’s and society’s benefit.

4. The suspended sentence remained a merciful and exceptional outcome. The court made clear that any repetition of anti-social or criminal conduct was very unlikely to attract comparable leniency.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave for a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and, in [2019] EWCA Crim 2471, declined to increase the sentence.
• Crown Court at Taunton: On 21 November 2018, imposed two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years for robbery, with rehabilitation and supervision requirements.