Affirmation of Category A1 Sentencing for Absent Conspirators
Commentary on R v Lambert, [2025] EWCA Crim 918

1. Introduction

R v Lambert concerns an appeal against a 14-year sentence imposed for conspiracy to commit robbery arising from a pair of inter-linked robberies in August 2018: a terrifying car-jacking aimed at obtaining a getaway vehicle, and the subsequent armed raid on a Tesco Express cash-machine. Chakiah Lambert, 19 at the time of the offences and 23 when first sentenced, argued that the trial judge had (i) mis-categorised the Tesco robbery under the Sentencing Council’s Robbery Guideline and (ii) failed properly to reflect the fact that he was not physically present at the Tesco raid. Lord Justice Edis, giving judgment for the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), dismissed the appeal, holding that:

• Category A1 (professional, planned, commercial robbery) was correctly selected, and
• An offender who intentionally facilitates such a robbery, knowing that serious violence is contemplated, can be sentenced on broadly the same footing as those at the scene.

The decision therefore crystallises a practical rule: planning-level conspirators in professional robberies can attract Category A1 sentences even if absent when the violence is executed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

After reviewing the facts and the original sentencing remarks, the Court held:

• The robberies were sophisticated, involved multiple vehicles with false plates, and required credible threats of violence with a hammer, knife and imitation firearm.
• Applying the Robbery Guideline, Category A1 (high culpability / highest harm) was “entirely appropriate”.
• A starting point of 16 years would have been justified; the trial judge’s base figure of 12 years (bottom of the A1 range) already reflected Lambert’s age, lesser role and absence from the Tesco scene.
• An additional two years for the car-jacking and theft of the Alfa Romeo produced a proportionate totality sentence of 14 years.
• No error in principle or manifest excess was shown; the appeal was therefore dismissed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Discussed

• R v Morgan and Lambert [2022] EWCA Crim 1554 – the earlier conviction appeal which quashed Morgan’s conviction but upheld Lambert’s. It set out the detailed evidential matrix (phone data, ANPR, forensic links) underpinning the conspiracy and provided the factual backdrop for the present sentencing challenge.
• Sentencing Council: Robbery Definitive Guideline (2016) – although not a “case”, the Guideline is a mandatory benchmark (Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.125). The Court concentrated on the “Professional, planned, commercial” section (pp. 14-17) and the Category A1 starting point of 16 years.
• Totality Guideline (Sentencing Council, 2021) – implicitly applied when the judge added only two years for the car-jacking, showing moderation to avoid an excessive cumulative sentence.
• General conspiracy/robbery authorities (e.g., R v Hussain, R v Sharma) were not expressly cited but the Court’s reasoning is consistent with the established principle that conspirators share liability for foreseeable acts done in pursuance of the agreement.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Correct Guideline & Category – The Court emphasised that the defendants had:

• Targeted a high-value cash replenishment operation (£71,740);
• Used stolen vehicles with cloned plates, masks and weapons; and
• Undertaken reconnaissance and preparatory car-jacking the day before.

Those features satisfy both the “professional/planned” limb and the top harm category (“very high” value; significant risk of serious harm).

2. Equivalence of Culpability for Planners – Although Lambert was at work during the Tesco robbery, he had obtained and prepared the getaway car knowing that violence would be used. The foreseeability of violent threats places a conspirator “on the hook” for the natural and probable consequences, aligning with:

• Joint enterprise principles (R v Chan Wing-Siu; adjusted by Jogee but still applicable where intent is proven), and
• Sentencing parity for organisers and planners (R v Graham).

3. Starting-Point Adjustment – The judge descended from 16 to 12 years to reflect age (19) and lesser role – illustrating flexible application of the Guideline rather than mechanical adherence.

4. Totality – Instead of sentencing each robbery discretely and making sentences consecutive, the judge increased the single sentence by two years. Lord Justice Edis endorsed this as a pragmatic method consistent with the Totality Guideline (§2.17).

3.3 Potential Impact

• Clarity for Sentencers: The decision confirms that Category A1 remains the default for well-planned commercial robberies, even where the individual before the court was not at the scene.
• Conspiracy Scope: Defence arguments seeking substantial discounts solely on the basis of physical absence are unlikely to prosper where knowledge of intended violence can be inferred.
• Youthful Offenders: Age will mitigate within, but not outside, the guideline range; 19 years is not sufficiently youthful to disapply A1 in serious organised crime.
• Practical Sentencing Technique: Adding a modest uplift for linked preparatory offences (rather than imposing discrete consecutive terms) receives appellate approval, offering a template for judges managing multi-episode conspiracies.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Conspiracy to Commit Robbery: An agreement between two or more persons to carry out a robbery. Liability arises once the agreement is formed; the robbery need not succeed.
• Category A1 (Robbery Guideline): High culpability (“Category A”) plus the greatest harm (“Category 1”). It concerns professional, carefully planned commercial robberies with high value or serious threat of harm. Starting point: 16 years (after trial).
• Starting Point vs. Range: The starting point is the notional sentence after trial for a “typical” case in that category. The sentencing range provides upper and lower boundaries allowing judicial discretion for aggravating/mitigating factors.
• Totality Principle: Ensures that when multiple offences are sentenced, the overall sentence is just and proportionate, avoiding a mechanical “add-up” that becomes excessive.
• Manifestly Excessive: The appellate threshold for interference with sentence. A sentence may be severe but will only be reduced if it is plainly outside the reasonable range.

5. Conclusion

R v Lambert reaffirms that where a defendant knowingly participates in the planning of a professional, high-value robbery, the apex Category A1 of the Robbery Guideline ordinarily applies, regardless of physical presence at the execution stage. The Court of Appeal’s robust dismissal reinforces parity between planners and perpetrators, underscores the significance of foreseeability of violence, and approves measured totality adjustments. Practitioners should note that youth, lesser role, or alibi for the final act may temper but will rarely displace A1 categorisation in sophisticated conspiracies. The judgment thereby provides concrete guidance for future sentencing of organised robbery conspirators and strengthens the deterrent message against logisticians who imagine they can avoid the gravest penalties by staying in the background.