R v Jamie Ronan

On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range reasonably open to the first-instance judge. A significant role in planning an armed robbery, combined with knowledge that a significant weapon would be used, places culpability in category A. A driver’s lesser role may justify only a modest downward adjustment. A guilty plea entered after a not guilty plea at the plea and trial preparation hearing attracts no more than a 20 per cent reduction, subject to any further reduction arising from a Newton hearing.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence imposed on Jamie Ronan under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The respondent had pleaded guilty to robbery after initially pleading not guilty. Following a Newton hearing, the Crown Court at Chelmsford found that he had played a significant part in planning the robbery, knew that a real or imitation weapon would be used, and was taking a share of the proceeds. The judge sentenced him to 38 months’ imprisonment.

The Solicitor General contended that the offence fell within category A culpability, that the plea discount was excessive, and that the sentence was unduly lenient. The central issues were the correct culpability category, the appropriate guilty plea credit, and whether the statutory threshold for intervention was met.

The court granted leave to refer the sentence, quashed the sentence of 38 months and substituted a sentence of 56 months.

1. Section 36 principles. The court followed the principles summarised in Attorney General’s Reference (R v Egan) [2022] EWCA Crim 1751. The first-instance judge is particularly well placed to assess competing sentencing factors. A sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range reasonably open to that judge. Leave is granted only in exceptional, non-borderline cases involving gross error. Even where undue leniency is established, the court retains a discretion whether to increase the sentence.
2. Culpability. The Newton hearing had been conducted correctly and its findings were sound. Those findings established significant involvement in planning and knowledge that a significant weapon would be used to threaten the victim and obtain a large sum of money. The offence and the respondent’s role therefore fell squarely within category A culpability, with a starting point of eight years and a range of six to 10 years. The agreed category 2 harm assessment was not criticised.
3. Sentence calculation. The respondent’s role as driver, rather than an active participant in the confrontation, justified a small downward adjustment. Aggravating features had to be balanced against strong mitigation, including good character, remorse, positive references and delay. Nevertheless, the sentence before credit could not properly be below 66 months.
4. Guilty plea. Because the respondent had pleaded not guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing, the maximum subsequent plea reduction was 20 per cent. The discount was reduced by a further five per cent to reflect the mixed Newton hearing outcome, producing a 15 per cent reduction and a final sentence of 56 months.
5. The court declined to leave the sentence unaltered. It also directed correction of the statutory surcharge on the court record from £222 to £190.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, found the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted 56 months’ imprisonment: [2026] EWCA Crim 443.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: Following a Newton hearing, the respondent was sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment on 3 December 2025. No separate citation for that decision was stated.