[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Greenland, R. v [2002] EWCA Crim 1748 (28 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1748.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Crim 1748

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		Friday 28th June 2002

1. th June 2002

1. MR JUSTICE RODERICK EVANS: On 21st September 2001 at the Inner London Crown Court this appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of robbery. Following an adjournment for the preparation of reports, the appellant was sentenced on 16th November to a term of six years' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence with the leave of the single judge.

2. The offence of robbery took place at about 10.00 p.m. on Wednesday 1st October 2001. The victim, Elizabeth Early, had got off a tube at Clapham Common station and began to walk home. She was carrying a handbag. After she had walked 200 yards she was attacked from behind by the appellant who tried to pull her handbag away from her. When she resisted, he punched her to the face. The victim recalls that she was punched repeatedly by the appellant, although the appellant, when interviewed later by the police, said he could remember punching her only once. In any event, the victim suffered a cut and bruising to her eye and was badly upset and frightened by her experience. Ultimately she let go of her handbag and the appellant ran off. Fortunately two doormen from nearby premises had seen the incident and gave chase to the appellant. They caught him, overpowered him and brought him back. The handbag was returned intact to its owner and the appellant was arrested.

3. When later interviewed by the police, the appellant fully admitted committing the robbery, saying he had hung around Clapham Common station waiting for a victim. When he spotted Elizabeth Early he decided to rob her because, he said, she just looked like a victim.

4. From that short recitation of the facts it can be seen that this was a planned and determined street robbery in which a vulnerable victim was targeted, suffered violence and suffered injury.

5. The appellant has been before the courts on numerous previous occasions. Most importantly he has previous convictions for robbery. On 28th October 1985 he was convicted of robbery and sent to a detention centre. On 27th April 1990 he was convicted of assault with intent to rob and made the subject of a hospital order. On 15th May 1992 he was sent to prison for two months for an offence of robbery. He has other convictions relating to the possession of weapons in public places.

6. When passing sentence the judge had before him two reports, a psychiatric report and a pre-sentence report, both of which gave details of the appellant's drug abuse and in particular his history of taking crack cocaine. The psychiatric report made no recommendation for a disposal under the Mental Health Act.

7. Before us Miss Clarke has submitted, succinctly and attractively, that the sentence imposed upon the appellant did not adequately reflect proper credit for his guilty plea and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

8. What has to be considered in this case, firstly, is that this appellant was caught virtually redhanded. That he was entitled to some credit for his plea is certainly correct, but he is not entitled to the full credit that he would have had had the evidence against him not been so overwhelming and had he not been caught redhanded. Secondly, he has a very bad record for robbery. This is his fourth conviction for an offence of robbery.

9. This kind of street robbery is prevalent and becoming increasingly so. Such robberies are serious and this is a particularly serious example. People are entitled to be safe and feel safe on the streets and to know that the courts will do their best to ensure their safety. This kind of conduct merits condign punishment. The sentence is not manifestly excessive. The appeal is therefore dismissed.