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.
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.
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.
A magistrates’ court had failed to adopt the correct approach when rejecting a submission of no case to answer in respect of a charge of robbery.
A sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a man who had been convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.