R v Andrew Murphy

For Advocate’s Graduated Fees Scheme banding, a robbery involving an offensive weapon is “armed robbery” only where the weapon falls within the statutory category identified by the relevant legislation and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. A weapon may be an offensive weapon in other contexts, and its use may aggravate sentence, without making the robbery an armed robbery for fee purposes. A concealed or impliedly threatened bat therefore does not, without more, bring a robbery within the armed robbery band.

The appellant represented the defendant, who was charged with a co-defendant at Sheffield Crown Court with robbery contrary to s.8(1) of the Theft Act 1968. The prosecution alleged that the co-defendant threatened the victim with a concealed bat during the robbery.

The appellant claimed remuneration under Band 11.1 of the Advocate’s Graduated Fees Scheme, which covers armed robbery. The Legal Aid Agency assessed the claim under Band 11.2, covering other robberies. The appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 concerned whether the alleged weapon made the offence armed robbery.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The robbery was properly assessed under Band 11.2 rather than the armed robbery band.
2. The relevant statutory framework provides an effective definition of armed robbery, so far as offensive weapons are concerned, by reference to weapons of the particular kind specified in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. The reference in sub-paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crimes Act 2007 is therefore material.
3. The court preferred the approach in R v Kendrick and R v Kapoor to that in R v Day and R v St Martin. A bottle, plank, chair, motorcycle helmet or bat may constitute an offensive weapon in particular circumstances. That does not necessarily make a robbery involving it an armed robbery for the relevant banding scheme.
4. The alleged bat was not seen. It was concealed beneath the co-defendant’s clothing and used as an implied threat. Although its presence or use could be an aggravating feature for sentencing, robbery involving such a concealed bat would not ordinarily be described as armed robbery for the purposes of the remuneration bands.

• Legal Aid Agency: The Determining Officer assessed the claim under Band 11.2 rather than Band 11.1.
• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): The appeal under regulation 29 of the [2025] EWHC 644 (SCCO) was dismissed.