Attorney General's Reference (Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of 2007); Crummack (Paul Anthony) and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HOOPER |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWCA Crim 1692 |
| Docket Number | No: 200701828 A6; 200701831 A6; 200701830 A6 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 21 June 2007 |
[2007] EWCA Crim 1692
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Hooper
Mr Justice Holman
Mr Justice Burton
No: 200701828 A6; 200701831 A6; 200701830 A6
Reference by the Attorney General Under
S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
MR N HILLIARD appeared on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL
MR G HENDRON appeared on behalf of the OFFENDER CAMPBELL
MISS L AZMI appeared on behalf of the OFFENDER CRUMMACK
MR N P ASKINS appeared on behalf of the OFFENDER STELL
The Attorney General seeks leave to refer to this court as unduly lenient sentences passed on three offenders. We grant leave.
The first offender is Lee Campbell. He is 30 years of age, having been born on 19th March 1977. The second offender is Paul Anthony Crummack. He is 21 years of age, having been born on 19th April 1986. He was 20 at the time of the offences. The third offender is Michael Anthony Stell. He is 22 years of age, having been born on 26th February 1985. He was 21 at the time of the offences.
All three offenders pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery. Count 1 charged them with, on 7th day of September of 2006, robbing Melvin Baldwin of electrical equipment, and count 2 charged them on the same day of robbing William Cameron Hague of two mobile phones. In addition, the second offender, Crummack, pleaded guilty to manslaughter by unlawful killing of Melvin Baldwin.
Before pleas, the judge had been asked to give, and gave, an indication of sentence. The sentences passed reflected that indication. The judge decided that each offender was entitled to a full one third credit for pleading guilty early. That decision is not challenged by the Attorney General.
The sentences which were passed on 8th March 2007 were as follows. For the first offender, two years and nine months' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. For the second offender, two years and six months' detention in a young offenders institution on each count to be served concurrently, and three years and six months' detention in a young offenders institution to be served concurrently for the offence of manslaughter. As far as the third offender is concerned, he received a sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. There were other orders which we do not need to mention, but which we affirm.
The judge made a declaration under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that, in the case of the first offender, 170 days spent on remand should count towards the sentence, and in the case of the other two, 168 days. That declaration is not challenged.
In summary, the offenders went to a flat occupied by the victim, Melvin Baldwin, who was 67 years of age. Mr Baldwin's partner, William Hague, aged 31, was visiting the flat at the time. The offenders were admitted to the house by Baldwin. The second offender had an iron bar and the third offender had a rolling pin. The victims were threatened with the weapons but the weapons were not used. Melvin Baldwin was punched once by the second offender. It was that punch which led to his death. William Hague was punched twice by the second offender as they left. The violence actually used was at the lower end of the scale, albeit of course the punch caused the death. The offenders left when challenged. Before leaving they had committed the thefts. Eight days later, Mr Baldwin died of a head injury which he had sustained as a result of the second offender's single punch.
The detailed facts were as follows:
“(a) Melvin Baldwin and William Hague lived together in a one bedroom flat in Shipley. Mr Baldwin knew the 1st offender, having met him while both were serving prison sentences. Mr Baldwin had a number of convictions involving sexual offences against male children.
(b) On 7th September 2006 the offenders went to the victim's flat, together with a 4th man who was never charged. The 3rd offender drove the group to the flat. The 1st offender was able to gain entry because Mr Baldwin knew him. The 2nd offender took with him an iron bar and the 3rd offender had a rolling pin. Having gained entry to the flat, the 3rd offender stood in front of Mr Baldwin, tapping the rolling pin on his hand in a threatening manner. The 2nd offender stood behind Mr Baldwin, holding the iron bar.
(c) The 1st offender ransacked the bedroom. The 2nd offender started demanding money. Mr Baldwin refused and the 3rd offender said 'Do him'. The 2nd offender struck Mr Baldwin with his fist, causing Mr Baldwin to fall backwards into his chair. It was this blow which was to prove fatal.
(d) The 3rd offender then pinned Mr Hague into this chair by holding the rolling pin against his throat. The offenders demanded the keys to a small locked metal box, but, when the keys were handed over, they discovered that it was empty.
(e) The incident ended when Mr Baldwin stood up and brandished a sherry bottle. The offenders left, taking a quantity of electrical items including DVD players and mobile telephones. On leaving the premises the 2nd offender punched Mr Hague twice on top of his head. Mr Hague thought that it was in frustration at the lack of goods.
(f) On Friday 15th September Mr Baldwin complained of pain in his head. He was taken to hospital by ambulance. A scan showed that blood had collected within his skull and was compressing his brain. He was declared dead at 9.17 p.m. on the same evening. Mr Baldwin had had a heart complaint in respect of which he was taking warfarin which exacerbated the subdural bleeding. (The sentencing Judge said that the 2nd offender had been unaware of this).
(g) The 1st offender was arrested on 16th September. The 2nd and 3rd offenders were arrested on 19th September. The offenders were interviewed.
(h) The 1st offender said that they had gone to the victims' flat, at the suggestion of the 3rd offender, to scare Mr Baldwin and take some property. He had not intended that there should be any violence and he had not seen any weapons. He had agreed to go because on one occasion in the past Mr Baldwin had made an indecent approach to him while he was asleep.
(i) The 2nd offender initially made no comment but then said that the others had suggested the idea to him and that the intention had been to scare the victims. He asserted that he had had no weapon and denied having punched Mr Baldwin. He indicated that he disliked paedophiles because his father had abused his sister.
(j) The 3rd offender said that he had been the lookout. He admitted that he had had the rolling pin but said that it had been handed to him by the 2nd offender.
(k) Some of the stolen property was recovered but some had already been sold.
(l) The 1st offender had 34 previous convictions for 122 offences, starting in 1988 when the offender was 11 years old. Most of these were offences of theft and burglary. He had one conviction for attempted robbery and had been sentenced to 33 months' detention. His longest sentences was one of 4 1/2 years' imprisonment for burglary of a dwelling and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
(m) The 2nd offender had no previous convictions and one caution for an offence of criminal damage.
(n) The 3rd offender had 7 previous convictions for 14 offences. These included an offence of burglary and an offence of possession of an offensive weapon in respect of which he served a short custodial sentence. The remaining offences were mainly motoring matters.”
Mr Hilliard, on behalf of the Attorney General, submits that the following aggravating factors are present. The victim was a 67 year old man who was robbed in his own house. The robberies were carried out by four men acting together. Weapons were used to threaten the victims, namely the rolling pin and the iron bar. The first offender used his previous association with the victim to gain access to the flat. The offending was in part motivated, at least in the case of the first and second offenders, by a desire to punish one of the victims for sexual matters. Insofar as the offender Campbell is concerned, he had an extensive list of previous convictions. In the case of the third offender, he had the convictions to which we have already referred.
The following mitigating factors are present. In the case of the first offender, he assisted the police by providing the names of the co-offenders in interview and he pleaded guilty. In the case of the second offender, he also pleaded guilty and he had no previous convictions. In the case of the third offender, he pleaded guilty.
For the purposes of determining the correct sentence for the first and third offenders for the counts of robbery, the manslaughter must, as Mr Hilliard accepted, be ignored.
The judge declined to pass an indeterminate sentence. That decision is not challenged.
Mr Hilliard accepted that in the case of the second offender, the judge was right to pass concurrent sentences for the robberies and the manslaughter.
Although the judge made a distinction between the sentences passed on the three offenders, we take the view that, if we decide to interfere with the sentences, then all three offenders should receive the same sentence for the robberies (although we fully understand why the judge added the additional three months to the first offender's sentence). The first offender is aged 30 and has, as we have seen, a very extensive and relevant criminal record. The second offender was only 20 at the time of the offence, had no previous convictions, but he was armed with the iron bar and the robbery was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Roe
...robberies. That was the approach adopted by this court in Attorney General's Reference Nos 38 to 40 of 2007 (Crummack and others) [2007] EWCA Crim. 1692, [2008] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 56. That, however, was a case of very limited violence. There were punches (two), in effect pushing the householde......
-
Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Another
...judge could have adopted. In ( R v Crummack & Ors)Attorney-General's Reference Nos 38, 39 and 40 of 2007 [2008] 1 Cr App R(S) 56, [2007] EWCA Crim 1692, the court expressed the view that a robbery committed in someone's home was clearly a very important factor which could increase the sent......
-
R v Edwin Grant Jones and Another
...court; a range of 13 to 16 years. However, as this court has said in the past, and in particular in the case of the Attorney General Reference (Nos 38, 39 and 40 of 2007) [2007] EWCA Crim 1692, cases where sentences of 13 to 16 years have been imposed for violent personal robberies are wher......
-
R v Ajay David Rowding and Another
...17 We have also been referred to a number of cases helpfully collected together in a folder by Mr Rule. They are: Attorney General's Reference Nos 38, 39 and 40 of 2007 ( R v Crummack and Others) [2008] 1 Crim app R(S) 56 (319), [2007] EWCA Crim 1692; Attorney General's Reference No 72 of ......