Charlton, R. v

On a sentence appeal alleging manifest excess, the appellate court will not interfere where the sentence falls within the permissible range after proper account has been taken of personal mitigation, the guilty plea, and the seriousness and aggravating features of the offending. Mental disorder linked to the offence may constitute mitigation, but its weight depends on the medical evidence and the extent to which it affected culpability. Where the evidence of causal connection is weak and the offence was planned and deliberate, the mitigation may carry limited weight. A tragic personal history and substance dependence do not necessarily outweigh significant aggravating features, including previous convictions, offending on licence, planning, targeting and the impact on the victim.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court to possessing an imitation firearm with intent, contrary to section 16 A of the Firearms Act 1968, and robbery, contrary to section 8 of the Theft Act 1968. On 18 September 2020, he received concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment for the firearm offence and eight years for robbery.

He appealed with limited leave, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient weight had been given to his personal mitigation. That mitigation included childhood abuse, long-term drug dependence, bereavement, mental health difficulties and alleged psychosis associated with withdrawal from Spice. The central issue was whether, having regard to that material, the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The complaint was confined to the treatment of personal mitigation. There was no challenge to the robbery categorisation or to the 20 per cent reduction for the guilty plea. The question for the court was whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive, rather than whether a different sentence might have been appropriate.
2. The offending was serious and deliberately planned. The appellant had stolen a vehicle, travelled from Bournemouth to Leicester, selected a business to rob, armed himself with an imitation firearm, concealed his appearance and carried out the robbery in daylight while the victim was alone. His previous convictions, offending while on licence, targeting of the premises and the effect on the victim were significant aggravating features.
3. The appellant’s mental health difficulties remained capable of amounting to mitigation, even though they were linked to the offending. However, the expert evidence connecting the alleged psychosis and impaired decision-making to the robbery was weak. The complexity and deliberateness of the conduct showed that the appellant knew what he was doing. His long-term drug dependence and the failure to obtain his Methadone prescription therefore did not substantially reduce his culpability.
4. The Sentencing Council’s guideline on offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments was not in force when the appellant was sentenced. In any event, the judge had approached the issue as personal mitigation and had taken the material into account. A sentence of 11 years or more might have been justified before reductions for personal mitigation and the guilty plea. The judge’s figure of 10 years after personal mitigation, reduced to eight years for the plea, was within the proper range and was not manifestly excessive.

• Leicester Crown Court: On 18 September 2020, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years’ imprisonment for possessing an imitation firearm with intent and eight years for robbery.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2021] EWCA Crim 433.