Conteh, R v

An overall sentence for a connected spree of robberies must reflect the seriousness of the offending as a whole. This includes the number of offences, violence or threats used, relevant previous convictions and offending committed while on licence. Guideline starting points for individual offences remain material, but they do not displace the need for an appropriate overall term. Mitigation such as remorse, drug addiction and claimed exploitation may be relevant. Its weight may be reduced by persistent offending. On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is unduly lenient where the resulting overall term materially fails to reflect those features, even after appropriate credit for guilty pleas.

The offender pleaded guilty to six robberies of convenience-store shopkeepers and two offences of possessing an offensive weapon. The offences were committed during one week. They involved theft of alcohol and cash, violence against shopkeepers and, on two occasions, threats with a knife.

At Inner London Crown Court, the Recorder imposed concurrent sentences producing an overall term of four years’ imprisonment. The offender had relevant previous convictions and committed the offences shortly after release on licence. He relied in mitigation on drug addiction, claimed gang exploitation, remorse and prospects of reform.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the overall sentence properly reflected the guideline categories, the multiplicity and gravity of the robberies, and the aggravating and mitigating features.

1. The reference was allowed. The court granted leave and held that the overall sentence of four years’ imprisonment was unduly lenient.

2. The court applied the Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline for Street and Less Sophisticated Commercial Robberies. For the robberies involving a knife, violence with a bottle, or serious detrimental business impact, the starting point for a single offence was five years’ imprisonment, with a range of four to eight years. The remaining robberies each had a starting point of four years’ imprisonment, with a range of three to six years.

3. The sentence had to reflect six robberies committed within about a week against four shopkeepers. The offender used or threatened violence and twice brought a knife to reinforce threats. His previous robbery conviction and the fact that he offended while on licence were further aggravating features.

4. The absence of planning reduced seriousness. Remorse and a self-reported history of gang exploitation could carry some mitigating weight, and the court accepted that there were signs of possible reform. However, the weight of remorse and the background to offending was reduced by continued criminality. At age 22, youth and immaturity carried little force.

5. The appropriate sentence before plea credit was at least seven and a half years. The court did not interfere with the Recorder’s allowance of 20% credit for guilty pleas. The proper overall term was therefore six years.

6. The court quashed the four-year sentences on counts 5 and 7 and substituted concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment. The other concurrent sentences remained unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the sentence unduly lenient, and substituted concurrent six-year sentences on counts 5 and 7.
• Inner London Crown Court: On 4 December 2019, imposed concurrent sentences producing an overall term of four years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to six robberies and two offensive-weapon offences.