REGINA v ALFIE ATHERTON

A commercial robbery may properly be classified as professionally planned even where its execution is unsophisticated, if it involves a significant degree of planning or organisation. Harm must nevertheless be assessed by weighing all relevant circumstances, including actual and intended harm. Goods or sums must be very high in value, rather than merely high, before that Category 1 indicator is established. Where an offender did not indicate a guilty plea at the first stage and falls outside the guideline exceptions, a reduction exceeding 25% will be rare.

Following guilty pleas, Atherton and Roberts were sentenced for robberies and associated offending. Atherton received 10 years and six months’ imprisonment on the lead robbery count. Roberts received seven years and six months on that count.

Both appealed their sentences as manifestly excessive. Atherton challenged the classification and harm category under the robbery guideline, the uplift for previous convictions, and the limitation of guilty-plea credit to 25%. Roberts accepted the professionally planned commercial robbery classification, but contended that the judge had wrongly treated harm as Category 1 rather than Category 2.

1. Both sentence appeals were allowed. The sentencing judge was entitled to classify the lead robbery as a professionally planned commercial robbery, albeit at the lower end. Although the offending was not highly sophisticated, it involved significant planning and organisation. The appellants arranged to meet, collected a moped for a rapid escape, used a parking facility away from home, operated with defined roles, and went equipped with items for the offence.

2. The judge erred in assessing harm as Category 1. The assessment required a weighing of all relevant factors, including actual and intended harm. The goods taken were not shown to be very high in value for the relevant guideline indicator. There was no serious detrimental effect on the business, no serious physical or psychological harm, and no evidential basis for finding that substantially more goods had been intended to be taken.

3. For Atherton, the appropriate Category 2A starting point was about eight years. After allowing for totality, previous convictions and the timing of offending, the proper term before plea credit was 12 years. The court refused leave on the additional guilty-plea ground. Applying R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568, Atherton had neither indicated a plea at the first stage nor brought himself within a guideline exception.

4. For Roberts, the appropriate Category 2B starting point was about four years and six months. After totality and aggravating matters, the proper term before plea credit was seven years and six months. A 25% reduction was unobjectionable.

5. The sentence on count 1 was quashed and replaced with nine years’ imprisonment for Atherton and five years and six months’ imprisonment for Roberts. All other elements of the sentences remained unaltered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2021] EWCA Crim 1704, allowed both appeals against sentence and substituted reduced sentences on the lead robbery count.
• Crown Court Following guilty pleas, imposed concurrent sentences including 10 years and six months’ imprisonment on count 1 for Atherton and seven years and six months’ imprisonment on count 1 for Roberts. The lower-court citation is not stated in the judgment.
• Magistrates’ Court The appellants first appeared and were sent in custody to the Crown Court.