R v Kapoor

For graduated-fee classification, a conspiracy to commit armed robbery falls within the armed-robbery band if the prosecution case is that the agreement concerned armed robbery. It is immaterial whether an armed robbery was ultimately committed. The classification must, however, be supported by the case advanced against the defendant and the statutory meaning of armed robbery. Mere allegations that unspecified weapons might be carried do not establish a conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The relevant statutory definition is confined, so far as offensive weapons are concerned, to specified categories of firearm, imitation firearm or offensive weapon.

The appellant represented a defendant charged in the Crown Court with conspiracy to rob. The issue was whether the offence should be classified under band 11.1, for armed robbery, or band 11.2, for other robbery, under Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and the AGFS Banding Document.

The determining officer classified the offence as band 11.2. The appellant argued that the alleged conspiracy involved carrying offensive weapons on occasion, and therefore concerned armed robbery. The court had to determine whether the material established a conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

1. The appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 was dismissed.
2. Paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 1 provides that conspiracy to commit an indictable offence falls within the same band as the substantive offence. Accordingly, if the prosecution case is that the defendant conspired to commit armed robbery, the appropriate classification is band 11.1. Whether an armed robbery was actually committed is immaterial because the conspiracy offence is complete on agreement.
3. The statutory definition of armed robbery relevant to the classification is narrower than a general allegation that weapons may have been present. Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007, an offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 is armed robbery, so far as relevant, where the force or threat involves a firearm, imitation firearm or offensive weapon within the statutory definition.
4. The court accepted the conclusion in R v Kendrick that robbery involving a weapon outside those statutory categories is not armed robbery for graduated-fee classification. The approach in R v Stables did not assist the appellant: even applying that earlier test, the offences actually committed could not be classified as armed robbery.
5. The available evidence did not establish that the defendant was accused of conspiring to commit armed robbery. The prosecution case, as described, referred only to unspecified weapons being brought to some robberies. There was no sufficient evidence that the proposed weapons were firearms, imitation firearms or statutory offensive weapons. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the band 11.2 classification stood.

The judgment records an appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the determining officer’s classification of the offence. The appeal was dismissed.