[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 >> Ali, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 1410 (21 May 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/1410.html Cite as: [2008] EWCA Crim 1410

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		No: 200800967/A2 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		21st May 2008

1. MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS: On 5th February 2008, at the Crown Court at Leicester, the appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced by His Honour Judge Pert QC to four years' imprisonment.
2. He appeals against that sentence by leave of the single judge.
3. He is 32 years old. He has a bad criminal record with 27 convictions of 71 offences which include convictions of robbery in 1992, when he was sentenced to three years' detention in a young offender institution, and of attempted robbery in 1995, when he was sentenced to four years' detention in a young offender institution.
4. The facts of the present offence can be shortly stated. On 17th October of last year he went into a Farm Food store in Wigston and purported to purchase a bottle of chilli sauce for £1.00. As the manageress of the shop rang the amount into the till and as he proffered to her a £1 coin, he pushed her over causing her to fall on to a metal pole next to the till and to sustain some bruising to her arm. He snatched £130 from the till and ran out of the shop pursued by another member of staff but he was able to make good his escape.
5. Two days later he contacted the police from a public house and he waited there to be arrested. Following his arrest, he made full and frank admissions to the offence and apologised for his actions.
6. Clearly a custodial sentence was inevitable. The only issue was the length of that sentence and whether four years' imprisonment, with the full credit which the sentencing judge gave him for his plea of guilty and co-operation with the police, and so equating to a six year sentence following conviction, was manifestly excessive.
7. The definitive guideline for offences of robbery issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council identifies a sentencing range of two to seven years' custody and a starting point of four years' custody for a first time offender convicted of a robbery of a small business in which force is used which results in injury to the victim. Clearly the sentencing range and starting point are higher for a person with the appellant's previous convictions.
8. Although, as Mr Gibbs pointed out in his advice, the frequency of the appellant's offending and the seriousness of his offending seems to be diminishing, it is not without significance that he was convicted on 30th April 2004 of an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, making threats to kill and theft from the person.
9. It is also not without significance that he has a drug habit. It is perfectly clear from his attitude towards the probation service in the preparation of the pre-sentence report that he is not minded to seek help to address that habit at the moment and so there is a significant risk of re-offending in his case.
10. We do not minimise the gravity of this offence of robbery, or the effect upon the manageress of the shop. She made a victim impact statement in which she wrote of the shock of the incident and said that she could not stop shaking afterwards. The experience made her feel very nervous about working in the shop. It was clearly for her a very frightening experience.
11. But we observe that the offence lacks the aggravating features sometimes found in robberies of small businesses and, in particular, the use of a disguise. Whilst there was some violence, that violence was restricted to a push. Furthermore, the offending was spontaneous and there is the important mitigation of the appellant having contacted the police himself to make a full admission. That is possibly the best evidence of his remorse and regret and it may indicate that he is minded to try to avoid this type of offending in the future.
12. Having regard to all those matters, the conclusion this court has reached is that the sentence of four years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. We substitute for it a sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment. The appellant will fully understand that he will be liable to the licence provisions when he is released from that sentence. To that extent, and that extent only, this appeal succeeds.