R v Alan Francis Roberts

Sentencing under the applicable Definitive Guideline requires an evaluative assessment of culpability. The court must use the listed factors, weigh all relevant features, and assess them in the context of the individual case. It is not a mechanistic or numerical exercise.

Where features point to different culpability categories, category B is appropriate only if they genuinely balance each other or place culpability between categories A and C. A firearm’s discharge may properly remain the decisive high-culpability feature despite an absence of planning, particularly where the offender used the weapon after the immediate danger had ended.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Liverpool of wounding with intent and possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven and 12 years’ imprisonment respectively.

He had initially been attacked by a masked and armed co-accused. After the co-accused had been disarmed and overpowered, the appellant took the firearm, attempted to fire it, then shot the co-accused twice in the chest. The jury rejected his claim of lawful self-defence.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against the 12-year sentence. He contended that the absence of planning and the exceptional circumstances required medium, rather than high, culpability under the applicable Definitive Guideline.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge properly applied the Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline and the 12-year sentence for possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life was not manifestly excessive.

2. The appellant did not challenge the categorisation of harm as category 2. In assessing culpability, the Guideline required the court to use and weigh the factors in its tables. Where factors fell within different culpability levels, the court had to balance them to reach a fair assessment.

3. Discharge of the firearm was a high-culpability category A feature. The appellant’s lack of planning was a lower-culpability category C feature. Category B was available where such features balanced each other or culpability fell between categories A and C.

4. The assessment was evaluative, not mechanistic. It did not depend on counting factors. The judge was entitled to treat the firearm discharge as overwhelmingly significant in its factual context. Although the appellant had initially faced extreme violence and acted in self-defence, he had obtained the firearm after the co-accused was disarmed and on the ground. He knew that he was no longer in danger, yet attempted to fire the weapon and then shot the co-accused twice at close range. The judge was entitled to characterise that conduct as retaliation and revenge.

5. The judge had ample evidential basis for those conclusions. The upward adjustment from the 14-year starting point for aggravating features, followed by a reduction to 12 years for the unusual mitigation, adequately reflected the lack of planning, the appellant’s initial victimhood, and the origin of the firearm. The sentence was condign punishment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed in R v Alan Francis Roberts [2022] EWCA Crim 1074.

• Crown Court at Liverpool: On 18 January 2022, the appellant was convicted of wounding with intent and possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. On 25 February 2022, he received concurrent sentences of seven and 12 years’ imprisonment.