CA (Crim Div) (Dingemans LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Judge Wall QC)
13 February 2020
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions of two young offenders for conspiracy to commit robbery. The trial judge had been entitled to continue with the trial after a 16-year-old prosecution witness with ADHD, who had given evidence in chief and who had been cross-examined in part on behalf of one of the accused, became distressed and refused to continue to give evidence.
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Carr J, Judge Thomas QC)
25 October 2019
A judge had failed to pay adequate regard to the likelihood of a young offender’s development and susceptibility to change in the right environment when imposing an extended sentence for offences including robbery. The judge had been wrong not to find that the offending, serious though it was, could be sufficiently punished and the public sufficiently protected by a determinate sentence.
CA (Crim Div) (Hickinbottom LJ, Carr J, Andrews J)
15 August 2019
Custodial sentences of 12 months imposed on two young women who had pleaded guilty to being involved in the staged robbery of a betting shop were quashed and replaced with shorter suspended sentences where the judge had not properly considered the complex personal circumstances and strong mitigating factors in both cases.
CA (Crim Div) (Bean LJ, Choudhury J, Judge Potter)
4 July 2019
It was unclear if a judge had found that an indeterminate sentence was necessary for two robberies, but after considering the factors in the offender’s favour, an extended sentence should have been imposed. The sentences of detention for public protection were quashed and substituted with concurrent extended sentences of 12.5 years’ detention, comprising a 7.5-year custodial sentence and an extended licence period of five years.
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Goose J, Judge Kinch QC)
11 April 2019
A total sentence of two-and-half years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender for a robbery at a convenience store whist carrying of a knife and an attempted robbery of a bookmakers was unduly lenient. The judge had significantly understated the gravity of the offending and had overstated the allowance to be made for the offender’s mitigation.
CA (Crim Div) (Sharp LJ, Popplewell J, Judge Walden-Smith)
30 November 2018
An appeal against a sentence of 10 years and five months’ imprisonment for the robbery of an elderly man at his home and a separate domestic burglary was dismissed. The offender was a career burglar with a bad record of previous convictions. Although a starting point of 12 years before discount for a guilty plea might be regarded as severe, it was not manifestly excessive.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon Brown LJ, Carr J, Judge Brown)
25 July 2018
An offender was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment for robbing a convenience store. A three-year community order with a rehabilitation activity requirement had been unduly lenient, given the offender’s previous convictions and the fact that he had been on bail at the time of the robbery.
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, Moulder J, Judge Stockdale QC)
4 July 2018
A planned and organised robbery of a travellers’ site fell within Category 1A of the “robbery in a dwelling” sentencing guideline. The starting point was 13 years’ imprisonment, and the range was 10 to 16 years. Although the guideline indicated that a sentence of more than 13 years could be imposed in a case of particular gravity, the reference to 13 years was an error and had to be read as 16 years. The concept of “particular gravity” was not limited to cases in which extreme violence had been used.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Sir John Saunders, Judge Mayo)
22 June 2018
A sentence of six years and eight months’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of an offender who had pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm and attempted robbery. He had gone to the home of a vulnerable acquaintance and, in an incident lasting some 30 minutes, had threatened him with a knife, demanded money, and assaulted him, causing bruising and lacerations to his face and arm and a bleed to the brain.
CA (Crim Div) (Hamblen LJ, Sweeney J, Judge Kinch QC)
1 March 2018
A conviction for robbery was safe where defence counsel had made a tactical decision, with the offender’s agreement, not to apply to discharge the jury after the victims named a person relied on by the offender in his alibi as an additional suspect.