Maughan, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer sentences to this Court under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the ground that they were unduly lenient. The respondent offender, aged 19 to 20 at the time of the offences and 22 at sentencing, pleaded guilty on 12 June 2024 in the Crown Court at Warwick to two offences: robbery contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 and fraud contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. On 19 June 2024, the respondent was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment for robbery and 12 months' imprisonment for fraud, the latter concurrent, resulting in a total sentence of 20 months' imprisonment, alongside a victim surcharge order and a restraining order.

The facts, as agreed in the Final Reference, reveal that the offender targeted a vulnerable victim and "cuckooed" his home. The offender used a large machete to threaten the victim, demanding his bank card and PIN. The offender then fraudulently used the card to fund his lifestyle, withdrawing over £3,620 across several weeks. The victim's home was heavily soiled by the offender’s dog and damaged, compelling the victim to leave his home and local area. The victim and his sister provided statements describing serious psychological harm and disruption caused by the offences.

The offender had six previous convictions for eight offences dating back to when he was 14. Most notably, in December 2022, he was sentenced to 32 months' detention for violent offences committed in early 2022 and was released on licence in November 2023 but was recalled to custody before the present offences’ plea hearing. The sentencing court considered the Sentencing Council’s guidelines on robbery in a dwelling, fraud offences, and totality principles, including the offender’s prior sentences and mitigating factors such as his youth and guilty plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the respondent for robbery and fraud was unduly lenient within the meaning of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
2. The appropriate categorisation of harm caused by the robbery offence under the Sentencing Council’s guidelines (category 1 harm or category 2 harm).
3. The correct application of totality principles in sentencing, particularly considering the offender’s existing custodial sentence and prior serious offences.
4. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the starting point and adjustments made for aggravating and mitigating factors, including the discount for the guilty plea.

Arguments of the Parties

Submissions on behalf of the Solicitor General

• The sentencing judge erred in categorising the robbery offence as category 2 harm; it should have been category 1 harm due to serious psychological harm and property damage.
• Serious psychological harm was evidenced by the victim’s ongoing emotional distress and forced relocation; property damage included soiling and vandalism.
• Even if category 2 harm was correct, the sentencing judge failed to adequately uplift the sentence for aggravating factors and the concurrent fraud offence.
• The reduction of the sentence for totality was disproportionately large, resulting in an unduly lenient sentence outside the reasonable range.
• The sentencing judge underestimated the overall gravity of the offences and the impact of prior violent offences on the appropriate sentence.
• The 25% reduction for the guilty plea was appropriate and not challenged.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent

• The sentence, while possibly lenient, was not unduly so and fell within the reasonable range given the circumstances.
• The robbery offence was correctly categorised as category 2 harm.
• The offender’s youth, immaturity, and difficult upbringing justified the sentence imposed.
• There was a significant delay in bringing the case to court not attributable to the respondent.
• The principle of totality was properly applied, with the sentence reflecting the offender’s existing custody and earliest release date in April 2025.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Attorney General's Reference (R v Stewart) [2017] 1 Cr App R(S) 48	Law officers are not bound by prosecution concessions on offence categorisation if there is proper and substantial justification.	Supported the Solicitor General's submission that the Court could depart from the prosecution's categorisation of the robbery offence.
Attorney's-General Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846; [2022] 2 Cr App R(S) 10	Criteria for granting leave under section 36 of the 1988 Act; a sentence is unduly lenient only if outside the reasonable range of sentences.	Guided the Court's assessment of whether the sentence was unduly lenient, emphasizing deference to the sentencing judge but allowing intervention in exceptional cases.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court applied established principles for section 36 applications, recognizing the sentencing judge’s primary role but reserving intervention for sentences outside the reasonable range or involving gross error. The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s argument that the robbery offence could properly be regarded as category 1 harm, given the serious psychological harm to the victim and the property damage caused. Alternatively, if category 2 harm was correct, the Court found that the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently uplift the sentence for aggravating factors, including the concurrent fraud offence and the offender’s prior serious violent convictions.

The Court rejected the defence’s submission that a total sentence of six years would have been appropriate had all offences been dealt with together. Instead, it concluded that a sentence of at least ten years after trial would have been warranted, reflecting the overall gravity of the offending and the offender’s criminal history. Taking into account the offender’s time already served and the guilty plea discount, the Court determined that the minimum appropriate sentence for the robbery offence was 4½ years’ custody, with the fraud sentence to remain concurrent.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED the Solicitor General leave to refer the sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and SUBSTITUTED the sentence on count 1 (robbery) with a term of 4½ years' custody. The sentence on count 2 (fraud) remains concurrent and unchanged.

This decision directly affects the respondent by increasing the custodial sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offences and the offender’s criminal history. No broader precedent was established beyond the application of existing sentencing principles and guidelines to the facts of this case.