Hussain & Anor, R v

When sentencing a conspiracy involving repeated robberies, the court must assess the criminality of the offending as a whole. It is wrong to treat the conspiracy as equivalent to a single robbery merely because individual incidents might not separately satisfy the highest harm or culpability category. Armed, organised and repeated commercial robberies may properly fall within Category 1A where the overall offending involves weapons, substantial sums and significant planning. A guilty plea entered during the trial ordinarily attracts substantially reduced credit. The sentencing judge retains discretion within the applicable range, and a 5 per cent reduction may be appropriate. A consecutive sentence for a separate conspiracy is permissible where necessary to reflect distinct criminality, subject to totality.

The applicants renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Manchester on 17 January 2020. Hussain had been convicted after trial of robbery and conspiracy to rob and received a total sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment. Khan pleaded guilty during the trial to robbery and conspiracy to rob, and also pleaded guilty to conspiracies involving criminal property and stolen goods. He received a total sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment.

The offending comprised 11 professionally planned robberies of cash-in-transit vehicles, involving weapons and nearly £91,000 in stolen cash. Khan’s separate conspiracy concerning stolen vehicles involved vehicles worth approximately £125,000. The applicants argued that the robbery conspiracy should have been placed in Category 2A, that Khan deserved greater credit for his pleas, and that the sentences were excessive.

1. Hussain. The renewed application was refused. The sentencing judge had followed the Sentencing Guidelines and was well placed, having presided over the trial, to assess Hussain’s role and culpability. An 18-year sentence for the total offending was not remotely manifestly excessive.
2. Category of the robbery offending. The court rejected the submission that Khan’s robbery offending should have been treated as Category 2A. The judge was sentencing for ten robberies included in the conspiracy and a further robbery on count 1. Even if the threshold for serious harm or high culpability might not have been met in every individual robbery, that did not justify treating the overall activity as a single Category 2A robbery. The repeated, armed and professionally organised offending, the high sums targeted or obtained, and the associated criminality justified Category 1A and a starting point of about 19 years for the conspiracy.
3. Guilty plea credit. Under the Sentencing Council guideline on Reduction for Plea, a plea on the first day of trial attracts a maximum of one-tenth credit. A plea entered during the trial may attract a further reduced discount, even zero. The fact that the prosecution opening was still in progress did not change the character of Khan’s pleas. The sentencing judge was entitled to select a 5 per cent reduction within the applicable range.
4. Totality and separate offending. The two-year sentence for money laundering was concurrent because it formed part of the robbery criminality. The separate conspiracy concerning stolen vehicles justified a consecutive sentence. The judge properly applied totality by reducing that sentence from four and a half years to three years. The renewed application was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused. The 18-year sentence imposed on Hussain and the 21-year sentence imposed on Khan remained in force.
• Crown Court at Manchester: On 17 January 2020, Hussain was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment and Khan to 21 years’ imprisonment for the offences described in the judgment.