[2018] EWCA Crim 1552 [2018] EWCA Crim 1552

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.

[2018] EWCA Crim 1985 [2018] EWCA Crim 1985

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.

A 16-year extended sentence for the rape of an ex-partner was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle where the judge had been entitled to conclude that the offender was dangerous and a post-sentence report documented no change in mentality. There could also be no proper complaint about a concurrent 12-year sentence imposed for a second count of rape against the same victim.

[2018] EWCA Crim 1766 [2018] EWCA Crim 1766

A sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment for two violent offences against a mother and her child was unduly lenient and was replaced by a term of seven?and?a?half years imprisonment where the aggravating features had not been properly taken into account, such as the fact that the assault had been committed against a child, that the victims had been forced to leave their home, that the offences had been committed under the influence of alcohol and that the accused had previous convictions for violence.

[2018] EWCA Crim 1506 [2018] EWCA Crim 1506

Professional criminals who persisted in dealing with Class A drugs, after having been previously convicted and punished by a substantial term of imprisonment, required appreciably longer terms of imprisonment than others when they were subsequently convicted again. Accordingly, a judge was entitled to move into the category 1 range, and specifically, to the top of that range, in relation to an offender with previous convictions for drug offences who had pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to supply a controlled drug.