R v Marcus Spears

In sentencing for robbery, the court may assess culpability by reference to the offender’s actual participation, the basis of plea and the available evidence. A defendant who actively assists a robbery after it has become plainly apparent that force is being used may properly be placed in a higher harm category than one involving minimum harm, even if he joined at a late stage and did not personally use force. A judge may give no credit for a guilty plea entered only after the trial has begun and the jury has been sworn, where any available reduction has been exhausted under the guilty-plea guideline.

The appellant pleaded guilty at trial to robbery after the jury had been sworn. He had initially entered a pawnbroker’s shop as a customer. Another man then used force against the shop manager to gain access to the secure area and empty the till. The appellant prevented the manager from closing the front door, wedged it open, urged the other offender to leave and fled with him.

At the Crown Court at Birmingham, the appellant was sentenced on 7 February 2025 to two years and nine months’ imprisonment. The judge treated the offence as category C2 and gave no credit for the late guilty plea. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that his conduct should have been classified as category C3, and that some plea credit should have been allowed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge did not depart from the basis of plea and was entitled to treat the appellant’s offending as category C2 rather than category C3.
2. Although the appellant said that he became involved only at a late stage, he actively joined the robbery after it had become obvious that the co-offender was using force against the manager to enter the secure part of the shop. The CCTV footage included screaming, which the appellant would also have heard. He prevented the manager from shutting the front door and wedged it open so that the co-offender could leave.
3. The robbery therefore caused more than minimum harm. The appellant did not personally use or threaten force, but the offending had become a joint enterprise in which fairly significant force was used. He was not acting through coercion, intimidation or exploitation, and mental disability played no part. The other factors identified for category C did not apply.
4. The judge fairly reflected both the basis of plea and the relative roles of the two offenders. The uplift from the two-year starting point to two years and nine months for the appellant’s previous convictions was justified, notwithstanding the absence of a previous robbery conviction.
5. The judge was also entitled to allow no reduction for the guilty plea. The appellant maintained his denial until the trial was under way and the jury had been sworn. Applying the guideline on reduction in sentence for a guilty plea, the judge could properly conclude that any credit which might have been available at an earlier stage had been exhausted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 722.
• Crown Court at Birmingham — On 7 February 2025, following a guilty plea to robbery entered after the jury had been sworn, the appellant was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment.