R v Peter Robinson

In sentencing for attempted robbery, the court must assess the harm actually caused by the offender’s conduct, including serious psychological harm, even where the victim’s fear is based on a mistaken belief about the offender’s motive. Very significant force may be established by dragging a victim into an alley and throwing her to the ground. An attempted offence does not automatically attract a reduction where all material harm was inflicted and completion was prevented only by third-party intervention. An appellate court should not interfere with an evaluative sentencing decision where the judge considered the mitigation and the conclusion was open on the evidence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. An attempted rape charge resulted in no evidence being offered and a not guilty verdict. The appellant was sentenced on 6 July 2022 to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The offence involved following a woman at night, dragging her into an alley, throwing her to the ground and demanding money. The victim suffered serious psychological harm. The sentencing judge placed the offence in Category 1A, increased the eight-year starting point to ten years after considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and then allowed full credit for the guilty plea. The appellant appealed against sentence on categorisation, the absence of a reduction for attempt, and the treatment of mitigation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing decision was within the range open to the judge.
2. The offence was properly placed in Category 1A. The victim’s serious psychological harm was caused by the appellant’s criminal actions. Her belief that she was about to be raped, although mistaken as to his motive, did not make that harm irrelevant. The appellant had followed her, dragged her into an alley and thrown her to the ground.
3. The finding of culpability based on the use of very significant force was also open to the judge. The appellant dragged the victim despite her struggles and then pushed her to the ground with sufficient force to remove her shoes and graze her leg.
4. There is no automatic reduction in sentence merely because the offence is attempted rather than completed. Whether a reduction is appropriate depends on the circumstances. Here, the relevant harm had been completed and inflicted; the robbery was not completed only because third parties intervened. The judge was therefore entitled not to reduce the sentence. The court referred by comparison to R v Joseph [2001] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 88.
5. The judge had taken account of mitigation, including the appellant’s personal difficulties, developing insight and programmes addressing his drug problem and deteriorating mental health. The aggravating effect of his previous convictions, including a previous robbery involving an attack on a lone woman, was weighed against that mitigation. The resulting increase to ten years was open to the judge. The full one-third reduction for the guilty plea provided no ground for complaint.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 1 December 2022, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence. [2022] EWCA Crim 1637
• Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne: The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and was sentenced on 6 July 2022 to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.