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.
The Court of Appeal urged greater vigilance by advocates involved in sentencing hearings before the Crown Court. Three convictions for shoplifting were quashed as they were summary-only offences valued at less than £200 and should not have been included in the indictment.
An extended sentence of 18 years and five months, which included a custodial term of 13 years and five months, was appropriate in the case of the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob and to three offences of having an imitation firearm with intent.