Guidance on Use of the ‘Slip Rule’
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018317707383 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Author | Gavin A Doig |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Guidance on Use of the ‘Slip Rule’
R v Warren [2017] EWCA Crim 226
This appeal concerned the ambit of the power of a sentencing judge to alter or amend a sentence
after it has been passed under the powers contained within s. 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts
(Sentencing) Act 2000. The appellant had pleaded guilty to an offence of conspiracy to rob. The
brief circumstances of the allegation were that he was a participant in a conspiracy to rob jewellers’
shops using a sledgehammer to effect entry, stealing items from within and escaping on motor-
cycles. The group would then decamp into vans parked in strategic locations in advance to make
good their escape.
In the event, only one robbery was executed, at a firm in Tunbridge Wells; £94,000 of stock was
stolen and £21,000 of damage caused in the course of that offence. Other locations had been scouted and
plans made but the police moved in and made arrests after the first offence to protect the public. The
appellant’s basis of plea indicated that his role had been to drive the van away from the executed robbery,
for which he had been paid £2,000.
In his initial sentencing remarks on 18 March 2016, the recorder indicated a starting point for a
member of the conspiracy in the appellant’s position of 7 years’ imprisonment. He described the
appellant’s role as significant but not leading. The recorder indicated that he intended to add an
additional year to the sentence for each reconnaissance and planned robbery in which a defendant at
the appellant’s level in the hierarchy was involved. Features such as relevant previous convictions might
lead to a further increase in the starting point.
In the case of the appellant, the recorder identified his involvement in planned offences in Bath and
Wolverhampton, and that he had significant previous convictions including a robbery of a motorcycle in
2008. The recorder therefore increased the starting point from 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment, from which
he deducted one-third for a prompt plea, leading to a sentence of 6 years and 8 months.
During the hearing, the prosecutor alerted the recorder to the appellant’s admitted presence at the
completed offence in Tunbrid ge Wells. The recorder had made no r eference to this. The recorder
indicated that he did not intend to increase the sentence by a further period (likely to have been 1 year,
less credit for plea, so 8 months extra). The recorder said at the time, ‘ ... that is my error and I am not
going to cause any further distress to the defendant by revising my sentence ...That is his good fortune’
(at [7]). Thus, a sentence of 6 years and 8 months was imposed.
On 27 April 2016, 40 days later, the recorder had the case relisted under s. 155 of the Powers of
Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act, as he had decided to increase the sentence. The appellant was not
produced from custody through an administrative error. However, he was represented by his original
counsel who made submissions on his behalf. The Attorney-General had already instituted proceedings
to have the sentence reconsidered in the Court of Appeal. The recorder was aware of this.
It appears that the recorder was made aware at, or prior to, the slip rule hearing that, in addition to
being present at the executed robbery (which the recorder had decided to overlook when initially passing
sentence), the appellant had been involved in two more reconnaissance trips than had previously been
thought, making a total of four. The judgment is silent as to how this error had occurred.
The recorder proceeded to hear the case in the appellant’s absence. He increased the original starting
point from 10 to 13 years to take account of the appellant’s presence at the executed robbery and the two
additional reconnaissance trips. With credit for plea, a sentence of 8 years and 8 months would have
The Journal of Criminal Law
2017, Vol. 81(3) 240–243
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018317707383
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial