R v Wayne Sharman

Once the sentencing guideline factors have fixed the offence category, the full category range remains available to the sentencing judge. The appellate question is whether movement from the starting point was justified, rather than whether the notional sentence after trial reached the top of the range. A substantial uplift may be justified by several aggravating features, including relevant previous convictions and offending while subject to a court order. Factors already reflected in the offence category must not be double-counted.

By leave of the Single Judge, the appellant appealed against a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Cambridge on 9 April 2025 for robbery and possession of a bladed article. The parties had agreed that the robbery fell within category A2, with a five-year starting point and a range of four to eight years. The sentencing judge moved to the top of the range before allowing 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea. The issue was whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly whether the uplift from the starting point was justified.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of six years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
2. The robbery was properly treated as a category A2 offence. Although the carrying and use of a knife were reflected in the categorisation, the knife count did not attract a consecutive sentence and care was required to avoid double-counting. Nevertheless, using a knife while the offender’s judgment was impaired by intoxication created additional risk. Once the category had been determined, the full category range was available when assessing aggravating and mitigating features.
3. The fact that the notional sentence after trial was at the top of the range was not significant in itself. The proper question was whether the increase from the five-year starting point was justified. The Recorder was bound to move upwards. The uplift reflected the planned robbery of a vulnerable female shopkeeper, the disguise, apparent intoxication, attempted disposal of the balaclava, and the appellant’s considerable record, including repeated violent offending. His offending while subject to a community order, and his failures to comply with court orders, were also matters the Recorder was entitled to take into account.
4. A substantial custodial sentence was inevitable and there was little mitigation. The three-year increase was substantial but proportionate to the aggravating features, particularly the appellant’s history of violence and his status as an experienced offender who offended while subject to court orders.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed.
2. Crown Court at Cambridge: On 9 April 2025, imposed a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment for robbery and possession of a bladed article.