R v Daniel Robinson

When sentencing for robbery under the Robbery Guideline, harm must be assessed by reference to the robbery offender’s conduct. Injury and psychological harm caused by a co-defendant’s separate and continuing violence should not elevate the robber’s harm category.

A sentence within the resulting guideline range may nevertheless require immediate custody. A realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation can be outweighed where immediate custody is necessary to achieve appropriate punishment for serious public street offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery after pushing the victim and taking his telephone outside a bar. A co-defendant then committed a separate and sustained assault on the victim. The appellant received 28 months’ imprisonment after the sentencing judge placed the robbery in category 2B of the Robbery Guideline.

He appealed against sentence, contending that the offence should have been categorised as 3B and that any sentence below two years should be suspended. The central issues were the proper attribution of physical and psychological harm for guideline categorisation and whether immediate custody remained necessary.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the sentence was reduced from 28 months to 20 months’ imprisonment. The sentence was not suspended.

2. The robbery was properly categorised as category 3B. The appellant’s culpability was medium. The victim suffered real physical and psychological harm, but the court found that this resulted from the co-defendant’s separate and continuing assault rather than from the robbery. For the appellant’s robbery, there was no or minimal physical harm and the more than minimal psychological consequences could likewise not fairly be attributed to it.

3. The category 3B starting point of two years required uplift for the night-time public location, the appellant’s intoxication, and his remaining present while the co-defendant attacked the victim. The court also gave weight to the appellant’s attempts to stop that attack, his lack of previous convictions, remorse, immaturity, and psychiatric and personal mitigation.

4. Having balanced those matters, the court assessed the pre-plea sentence at about 25 months. The appellant’s 20 per cent credit for his guilty plea produced a sentence of 20 months.

5. Although 20 months was capable of suspension and the appellant had a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation, immediate custody was required for appropriate punishment. The robbery was serious public street offending at night outside a busy bar, and the appellant initiated the confrontation and committed the robbery.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of reducing the custodial term from 28 months to 20 months. The sentence was not suspended.

• Sentencing court: following a guilty plea to robbery, imposed 28 months’ imprisonment. The court is not otherwise identified in the judgment.