Walker, R. v

In a sentencing appeal, the decisive question is whether the total sentence is manifestly excessive for the offender’s overall criminality. Offences forming part of a connected course of conduct may nevertheless constitute separate criminality and justify consecutive sentences, provided that the principle of totality is observed.

When applying sentencing guidelines for robbery and domestic burglary, the court may assess the actual psychological harm, the value and significance of property targeted, the disturbance caused, and evidence of planning. Serious relevant antecedents may substantially aggravate the sentence.

The appellant was sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court on 15 November 2018 to five years and six months’ imprisonment for robbery in a dwelling, burglary, theft of a vehicle and driving whilst disqualified.

He had forced his way into a house, taken keys from a vulnerable occupier by force and threats, and then used the keys to take and sell the occupier’s vehicle. He appealed against sentence with leave of the Single Judge.

The appeal challenged the categorisation and length of the robbery and burglary sentences. It also contended that the vehicle-theft sentence should have been concurrent because the theft was part of the same overall criminal enterprise. The central issue was whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. It was just and proportionate to the overall criminality, particularly in light of the appellant’s exceptionally serious record for similar offending.

2. The court accepted that the sentencing judge’s remarks were unduly brief and did not fully explain either the guideline categorisation or the conclusion that vehicle theft was separate criminality. Those shortcomings did not render the sentence excessive. The appellate question remained whether the total term was manifestly excessive: [21].

3. The robbery of the keys was properly placed in category 2C of the robbery-in-a-dwelling guideline. The victim suffered more than minimal psychological harm. The keys were valuable to her, including because they related to her business, and the forced entry and taking caused more than limited disturbance. Her vulnerability, the early timing, the appellant’s intoxication and, above all, his record justified a sentence of four years and six months: [24].

4. The burglary involved significant forethought and planning. The judge was entitled to reject the submission that the offending was merely impulsive: [25].

5. The theft of the vehicle was separate criminality from the robbery and burglary. It therefore merited a consecutive sentence, subject to totality. The judge had specifically borne totality in mind, and the additional ten months for theft did not make the overall sentence excessive: [22], [26].

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed in [2019] EWCA Crim 867.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 15 November 2018, the appellant was sentenced to a total of five years and six months’ imprisonment following convictions for robbery and burglary and guilty pleas to theft of a vehicle and driving whilst disqualified.