Conteh, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Solicitor General applied under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for leave to refer sentences passed on the offender at Inner London Crown Court on 4 December 2019, as unduly lenient. Leave was granted. The offender faced eight charges including robbery and possession of offensive weapons. Initially, the offender pleaded guilty to some counts and not guilty to others, with some counts not arraigned due to oversight. Eventually, on the first day of trial, the offender pleaded guilty to all remaining counts and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms totaling an overall sentence of 4 years.

The offences occurred over a week in April 2019, involving a series of robberies targeting shopkeepers at convenience stores. Violence and threats with weapons, including a bottle and a knife, were used during these robberies. The offender had a significant criminal history including previous convictions for robbery and possession of a knife, and was on licence at the time of the offences.

The robberies involved four direct victims, some robbed multiple times. The offender used violence or threats in several instances, causing physical harm and fear among victims. The offender admitted dependence on drugs and stealing to support his habit during police interview. The offender had 14 prior convictions from eight previous court appearances, including serious drug and violence-related offences, and was on licence from a previous sentence when committing these offences.

Victim personal statements described the emotional and financial impact of the robberies, including fear, anxiety, and loss of business value. The sentencing court applied the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guideline for robbery, categorizing the offences by culpability and harm, and imposed an overall sentence of 4 years after a 20% credit for guilty pleas.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the offender was unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
2. The appropriate starting point and range for sentencing multiple robbery offences involving weapons and violence, considering the offender's criminal history and mitigating factors.
3. The application and extent of credit for guilty pleas in determining the overall sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

• The starting point for four of the robberies was a term of 5 years with a range of 4 to 8 years, due to high culpability involving weapons and serious harm.
• The offender committed six robberies over about one week, using or threatening violence and producing a knife on two occasions.
• The offender was on licence and had multiple relevant previous convictions, aggravating the offences.
• There was little mitigation available, and the 20% credit for guilty pleas was questionable but not the main focus.
• The overall sentence of 4 years was unduly lenient given the seriousness and number of offences.

Defendant's Arguments

• The sentence, although lenient, was not unduly so.
• The Recorder was bound to treat the offences as requiring an upward adjustment from the single offence guideline sentences.
• The offender was drawn into drug dealing by a gang and was unable to extricate himself, which was a mitigating factor.
• The offender had expressed remorse and a desire to move away from gang control, which was acknowledged by the Recorder.
• The mitigating factors justified the sentence imposed, including the 20% credit for guilty plea.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guidelines for robbery, categorizing the offences by culpability and harm levels. The offences involving a knife or weapon and significant impact on victims' businesses warranted a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment, while other robberies had a starting point of 4 years. The offender's previous convictions and being on licence aggravated the seriousness. The court acknowledged mitigating factors including remorse and background but found them diminished by continued offending and the offender's age. The court concluded that the sentence before credit for plea should have been no less than seven-and-a-half years, resulting in an overall term of 6 years after applying the 20% credit. The imposed sentence of 4 years was therefore unduly lenient.

Holding and Implications

The court QUASHED the sentence of 4 years' imprisonment on counts involving the knife offences and SUBSTITUTED a term of 6 years on each of those counts. The other sentences remained unaffected.

The direct effect is an increased custodial sentence for the offender on the most serious counts. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.