Smith, R. v

In sentencing co-offenders for planned aggravated burglaries involving weapons and violence, a court may treat them as equal partners where each knowingly participated and was complicit in the violence. Precise attribution of every act of violence is not required.

An extended sentence remains justified where the offender is dangerous and the circumstances, risk assessment and previous convictions show that a determinate sentence would not provide sufficient public protection. However, even grave and aggravated offending must receive a sentence proportionate to its overall seriousness. A pre-discount term that is almost double the guideline starting point may be manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court to two aggravated burglaries committed with a co-defendant on the same evening. The offences were planned. Both offenders used knives, targeted occupants at home and employed serious violence while demanding and stealing money and property.

The sentencing judge treated the defendants as equal partners, found the applicant dangerous, and imposed concurrent extended sentences of 16 years: 12 years’ custody and a four-year licence extension. The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal sentence, contending that his role was lesser, that dangerousness had not been individually assessed, and that the pre-discount term of 18 years was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence. The court rejected the challenges to the finding that the applicant and his co-defendant were equal partners. The applicant was properly sentenced on the basis of joint enterprise. The judge was entitled to conclude that a precise division of responsibility for the violence served little purpose. The applicant was at least complicit in the violence and, by the second burglary, knew the level of violence likely to be used.

2. The court also upheld the dangerousness finding. Although the sentencing judge had not expressly addressed whether a determinate sentence would sufficiently protect the public, the pre-sentence report, prior convictions, and the nature and circumstances of the offences established that an extended sentence was necessary and justified. There was no challenge to the four-year extended licence period.

3. However, the pre-discount custodial assessment of 18 years was manifestly excessive. The guideline starting point for one offence was 10 years, with a range of 9 to 13 years. The offending had numerous aggravating features, including planned group attacks, weapons, deliberate targeting of victims at home and serious injury. Even so, a total of 18 years before credit was almost double the starting point. A total of 15 years before guilty-plea credit properly reflected the overall seriousness of both offences.

4. The court quashed the concurrent 16-year extended sentences and substituted concurrent extended sentences of 14 years, comprising 10 years’ imprisonment and a four-year extended licence period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a renewed application, the court granted permission to appeal and allowed the sentence appeal in part, substituting concurrent extended sentences of 14 years.
• Lewes Crown Court: On 18 October 2019, His Honour Judge Gold QC imposed concurrent extended sentences of 16 years for two counts of aggravated burglary.