Mitchell, R. v

Under the Sentencing Council Guideline for Robbery, classification of a non-dwelling robbery depends on the facts of the individual case. A robbery may properly be treated as a professionally planned commercial robbery where it displays a significant degree of planning, sophistication or organisation. Comparisons with other cases are of limited assistance.

The aggravating factor of the offence’s location is not confined to closed premises. A public location may aggravate the offence where it exposes members of the public to risk. A severe uplift for aggravating features will not justify appellate intervention unless the resulting sentence is manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Derby Crown Court to robbery contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968. He robbed a security-van driver in a public car park after waiting with an accomplice, using a hammer and vehicles prepared for escape. The stolen cash exceeded £5,000.

The judge treated the offence as a professionally planned commercial robbery under the Sentencing Council Guideline for Robbery. Starting from five years’ imprisonment, she increased the sentence to seven years for aggravating features before credit for the guilty plea produced a sentence of four years and eight months.

On appeal against sentence, the appellant challenged both the Guideline category and the uplift for the public location and his previous convictions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The judge was entitled to classify the offence as a professionally planned commercial robbery. Category selection under the Guideline is a fact-specific exercise. This robbery involved an attack on a cash collection known to occur at an approximate time, waiting in a vehicle with false registration plates, an attempt at facial concealment, a weapon, and a second getaway vehicle. Those features demonstrated significant planning, sophistication and organisation.

3. Comparison with R v Aaron McKellar [2018] EWCA Crim 2208 did not assist the appellant. The earlier case lacked material features present here, including waiting, false number plates and a second vehicle. The court also observed that the two non-dwelling robbery categories may produce little difference in outcome because significant planning is itself an aggravating feature of street or less sophisticated commercial robbery.

4. The Guideline’s reference to the location of an offence as an aggravating factor is not limited to closed locations. The public car park, close to shops and used in the middle of the day, created a risk of exposure to members of the public and could properly aggravate the robbery. The appellant’s earlier robbery conviction, which had attracted a substantial custodial sentence, was also a significant aggravating feature. Although the two-year uplift was severe, it did not make the final sentence manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Derby Crown Court: following the appellant’s guilty plea to robbery, imposed a sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment on 22 January 2020.