Anderson v R

For the sentencing guideline governing street and less sophisticated commercial robberies, the production of a bladed article to threaten violence does not require a verbal threat, brandishing, or proof that the offender specifically intended to frighten the victim. The relevant question concerns the offender’s responsibility for producing a weapon which understandably causes fear of violence. The sentencing court must also stand back and assess whether the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate. Closely connected offending forming a single episode may properly attract concurrent sentences where the sentence for the most serious offences adequately marks the overall criminality. An individual sentence may therefore be upheld while the total sentence is reduced for insufficient regard to totality.

The appellant appealed with leave against sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Teesside on 15 July 2022. He had pleaded guilty to multiple offences committed over approximately six months and received an aggregate sentence of 8 years and 10 months’ detention. The principal challenge concerned two attempted robberies outside a primary school. The appellant argued that holding a knife without verbal threats or deliberate brandishing did not satisfy the high-culpability guideline factor and that the total sentence was excessive.

The appeal also raised ancillary issues concerning a no-separate-penalty order, driving disqualification, and the statutory surcharge. The central questions were whether the attempted robberies had been placed in the correct guideline category and whether the total sentence properly reflected the principle of totality.

Appeal allowed in part. The sentences for the attempted robberies were upheld, but the aggregate sentence and ancillary orders were amended.

1. Attempted robberies. The culpability factors in the sentencing guideline should not be read restrictively. The category A factor concerning production of a bladed article to threaten violence applied where the appellant produced a knife which was visible to the victims and caused them to fear that it would be used. A verbal threat, deliberate brandishing, or proof that the appellant intended the victims to feel threatened was unnecessary. It was sufficient that he produced the weapon while attempting to take the cars by force or threat of force and did not put it away despite the obvious fear it caused.
2. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to place the attempted robberies in category A2. The sentence of 7 years after trial, reduced to 67 months for the guilty plea, was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The circumstances in which the appellant was being pursued by an armed group provided only limited mitigation. The surrounding offences and the serious impact on the victims supported the judge’s assessment.
3. Totality. The court had to stand back and ask whether the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate for the appellant’s multiple offending. The individual sentence for unlawful wounding was understandable as a consecutive sentence because it involved a separate act and victim. However, the offences connected with the school incident on 14 May 2021 were properly treated as one episode. The 67-month sentences for the attempted robberies sufficiently marked the seriousness of all the offending at the school. The 19-month sentence for unlawful wounding was therefore ordered to run concurrently, reducing the total sentence to 7 years and 3 months’ detention. All other sentences remained unchanged.
4. The no-separate-penalty order for failure to surrender was quashed because the appellant had already received a fine for that offence. Applying the extension and uplift provisions in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and taking account of the release point and 14 months spent on remand, the driving disqualification was recalculated as 41 months, namely 3 years and 5 months. The statutory surcharge was reduced from £190 to £34 because the appellant was 17 when the earliest offences were committed.

• Crown Court at Teesside: On 15 July 2022, His Honour Judge Stead sentenced the appellant to an aggregate term of 8 years and 10 months’ detention and made ancillary orders.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 181, the appeal was allowed in part. The aggregate sentence was reduced to 7 years and 3 months’ detention, the no-separate-penalty order was quashed, and the ancillary orders were amended.