Rothero & Ors, R. v

On an appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal will be slow to interfere with a trial judge’s evaluative assessment unless there is a clear and principled basis for concluding that the sentence was manifestly excessive. A sentence for conspiracy may properly exceed the top of the relevant robbery-guideline range where the conspiracy comprises multiple offences of particular severity and the term reflects the offender’s overall criminality. Serious psychological harm, repeated threats of extreme violence, professional planning, use of weapons, vulnerable victims and persistent offending are material aggravating features. The principle of totality does not require a reduction where the resulting sentence fairly reflects the whole course of criminal conduct.

Four appellants appealed sentences imposed at Birmingham Crown Court on 24 June 2020 following convictions for conspiracies to rob, burgle and steal. Three appellants were also convicted of conspiracy to possess an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence.

Over about six months, the conspiracies involved armed commercial robberies, robberies in dwelling houses, dwelling-house burglaries and thefts of vehicles used in the offending. The offences were planned and increasingly ruthless. They involved disguises, stolen vehicles, bladed weapons and imitation firearms, with grave effects on victims.

Leave was granted on the sole ground that each overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether sentences of 15 years’ detention, 24 years’ imprisonment and 27 years’ imprisonment, respectively, were excessive or offended totality.

1. Appeals dismissed. The sentencing judge had heard the trial of two appellants, seen substantial CCTV evidence and received extensive submissions. The Court of Appeal was therefore slow to interfere with his evaluative assessment unless there was a clear and principled basis for finding the sentences manifestly excessive. None existed.

2. The offending was an exceptionally grave, sustained and professional course of criminal conduct. It comprised more than 20 incidents, including armed robberies, dwelling-house burglaries and thefts. The offenders used masks, stolen vehicles, bladed weapons and imitation firearms. They threatened extreme violence, sometimes used force, targeted vulnerable people and caused serious psychological harm.

3. The court held that the judge was entitled to sentence above the 20-year upper end identified for category 1A robbery offending in the Sentencing Council Guideline for Robbery. The Guideline expressly contemplated a sentence exceeding 20 years for multiple offences, or a single conspiracy to commit multiple offences, of particular severity. The commercial robberies were at the very top of the category range, and the sentences on the principal count properly reflected each appellant’s overall criminality.

4. Corey’s 15-year detention sentence was severe but reflected his extensive participation, including in the most serious robberies, and his individual aggravating features. Tyler’s 15-year detention sentence properly reflected his lesser, but still highly culpable, participation in the robbery of a mother and baby and several burglaries. Neither sentence was manifestly excessive or contrary to totality.

5. The dismissal of those appeals also confirmed the sentences for Nicholas, the architect of the conspiracies, and Aaron. Nicholas’s 24-year sentence after guilty-plea credit and Aaron’s 27-year sentence after trial remained justified by their roles, antecedents and the gravity of the overall offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellants’ sentence appeals were dismissed.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: On 24 June 2020, His Honour Judge Bond sentenced the appellants following convictions for conspiracies to rob, burgle and steal; three appellants also faced a conspiracy concerning imitation firearms.