Wilkinson, R. v

For a category 2A robbery, a sentencing court must give proper weight to aggravating features when fixing the sentence before credit for a guilty plea. A serious record for violence and dishonesty, the targeting of substantial cash, group offending, concealment, and offending while on licence may require an increase from the guideline starting point. Personal mitigation and credible evidence of rehabilitation remain relevant, but cannot justify a reduction where the overall seriousness calls for an uplift.

The Solicitor General referred, under Criminal Justice Act 1988, a three-year sentence for robbery as unduly lenient.

The offender had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne to robbery contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968. The parties agreed that the offence fell within category 2A of the Sentencing Council definitive guideline on street and less sophisticated robbery, for which the starting point was five years’ custody and the range was four to eight years.

The central issue was whether the judge had given excessive effect to mitigation by reducing the starting point before allowing credit for the guilty plea.

1. The court granted leave and held that the three-year sentence was unduly lenient. It substituted a sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment.

2. The agreed category 2A classification carried a five-year custodial starting point and a range of four to eight years. High culpability arose from the threatening use of an axe, while the psychological harm to the victims was intermediate rather than minimal.

3. The seriousness was increased by the offender’s substantial record of dishonesty and violence; the deliberate targeting of a large sum being counted; the location in a changing room; group offending; the concealment of identity; and commission of the offence while on licence. Whether the offender personally carried an axe made little practical difference, since the sentencing judge had proceeded on the basis that he did and the victims reasonably feared its use.

4. The court accepted that the offender’s difficult background, family responsibilities, expressed wish to reform, good conduct on remand, and positive prison reports were mitigating. However, their weight was necessarily reduced by his age and extensive offending history.

5. Taking the aggravating and mitigating circumstances together, the judge should not have reduced the five-year starting point to four years before credit. The appropriate sentence before plea credit was at least six years. Allowing 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea produced a proper sentence of four years and six months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted and the three-year sentence was replaced with four years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne — on 21 January 2019, the offender was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for robbery and an axe was forfeited under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.