In Court
| Author | Nigel Stone |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050204900228 |
| Published date | 01 June 2002 |
| Date | 01 June 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
182
Nigel Stone, Senior Lecturer in the
School of Social Work, University of
East Anglia, reviews recent appeal
judgements and other judicial
developments that inform sentencing,
early release and court welfare
practice.
In a widely publicised decision dealing
with three separate instances of street
robbery involving the taking of mobile
phones, the Court of Appeal, headed by
Lord Woolf CJ, characterised this type of
offence as “particularly worrying” because
of “the effect which they have on the
public” and on the victims, who are often
vulnerable by reason of their youth (as in
these instances) or old age, and because
“they undermine the criminal justice
system”. The Court noted the sharp rise in
thefts of this nature and research
indicating that those aged 11 to 16 are five
times more likely than adults to
experience such victimisation, concluding
that such prevalence requires a deterrent
response. A robust sentencing policy
should thus be adopted so that “custodial
sentences will be the only option ... unless
there are exceptional circumstances ...
irrespective of the age of the offender and
irrespective of whether the offender has
previous convictions”, though both factors
will be important in determining length of
sentence.
After reviewing case authorities, the
Court concluded that the appropriate
sentencing range should be from
18 months to five years (three years where
no weapon is used) but where the offender
has a number of previous convictions and
a substantial degree of violence is used or
if a particularly large number of offences
are committed, it may be appropriate to
exceed the upper limit. If a team of
offenders is involved, that will count as an
aggravating factor because this makes the
offence more intimidating.
With these guidelines in mind, the
Court considered the specific cases before
it. In respect of a youth aged 17 at the
time he robbed a 14 year old paper boy
after threatening him with a claw hammer,
sentence of four years detention was
reduced to three years, despite not guilty
plea and offending while on bail, given his
age and the fact that it was a single
offence not involving actual use of
violence. In respect of a 18-year-old
offender of previous good character who
robbed two young males at knifepoint, one
victim receiving a small wound to his
hand, the Court noted that he had been the
ringleader in a group offence and had
pleaded not guilty. Sentence of six months
YOI was unduly lenient and four years
would have been the appropriate term but,
as this was a reference by the Attorney-
General and there was thus an element of
double jeopardy, a period of 42 months
was substituted. In a further case, a
community punishment and rehabilitation
order imposed on a 19 year old offender
who pleaded guilty to three offences of
robbery was set aside on the basis that
four years would have been justified as a
starting point, reduced to three to reflect
plea.
Comment: Though publicised as taking
a new punitive stance, Lord Woolf made
clear that this judgement was not intended
to set new guidelines but simply to draw
together the principles already clearly
established by previous decisions of the
Court in respect of mugging-style robbery
and apply these to a variety of that crime
that has latterly given special cause for
concern. He noted that pre-1995
judgements could no longer be relied on
as they indicate an insufficiently severe
level of sentencing. He also urged
manufacturers to make strenuous efforts to
IN COURT
Mobile Phone Robbery
To continue reading
Request your trial