R v Ben Murphy & Anor

For a professionally planned commercial robbery, culpability may fall in the high-culpability guideline category where bladed articles are produced to threaten violence; actual use of the weapons is unnecessary. Harm may be in Category 1 where very high-value goods were targeted. The assessment concerns the intended target, not merely the goods ultimately recovered. Absence of physical or psychological injury does not displace that indicator. A robbery is not a failed attempt merely because security measures prevent the offenders taking all the goods targeted. Differences between co-offenders’ sentences may be justified by materially different records, and an appellate court will not interfere with a sentence within the guideline range unless it is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

Ben Murphy and George Murphy-Bristow were convicted of robbery at the Crown Court at Basildon on 15 February 2023 after a raid on a luxury watch shop. The Recorder sentenced Murphy to 18 years and Murphy-Bristow to 13 years, comprising 12 years for robbery and a consecutive year for offences relating to robbery equipment found in his car.

A single judge refused permission to appeal. The applicants renewed their applications, four and five days out of time. They challenged the guideline categorisation, relying on the insured stock value, the single watch actually taken and the absence of injury. Murphy also alleged disparity. Murphy-Bristow argued that the robbery was a failed attempt. The central questions were whether the categorisation and sentences were lawful and proportionate.

The renewed applications for permission to appeal against sentence were refused. The requested extensions of time were also refused.

1. Guideline categorisation. The Recorder did not sentence on the £2 million insured value of the shop’s stock. He concluded that the applicants expected to steal watches worth well into six figures. That conclusion was open to him on the evidence of the planned robbery, the targeted premises and the demand for big watches. The applicants’ sentencing exercise was not limited to the single Rolex actually taken.
2. Culpability and harm. Production of the axe and knife to threaten violence placed culpability in Category A. The fact that the weapons were not used was irrelevant because the threat they represented was sufficient. Harm fell within Category 1 because very high-value goods had been targeted. What mattered was what the applicants intended to take, rather than the result produced by the security intervention. The absence of physical or psychological harm did not alter that categorisation.
3. The court considered R v Khan [2017] EWCA Crim 440. Its factual situation was materially different and it provided limited assistance even as a comparator. However, the court relied on the principle identified at [17] of Khan that targeting, rather than the result, was material. The same reasoning applied to a high-end luxury watch shop.
4. Range and disparity. The assessment of where an offence falls within the guideline range was primarily for the Recorder, who had presided over the trial. Category A1 carried a 12-to-20-year range and a 16-year starting point. Murphy’s 18-year sentence was within that range and the two-year uplift was justified by his previous similar convictions. The lower sentence imposed on Murphy-Bristow did not make Murphy’s sentence excessive.
5. Attempt and overall excessiveness. The robbery was not a failed attempt. The fact that only one watch was taken resulted from the staff’s intervention, not from an incomplete offence. Standing back, the planning, disguises, weapons and restraint created a real threat of serious violence. The sentences were stern but accorded with the guidelines, were not wrong in principle and were not manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 379, refused the renewed applications for permission to appeal against sentence and the requested extensions of time.
2. Single judge: Refused permission to appeal against sentence.
3. Crown Court at Basildon: Convicted both applicants of robbery and sentenced Ben Murphy to 18 years’ imprisonment and George Murphy-Bristow to 13 years, including a consecutive one-year term for offences relating to robbery equipment.