Court of Appeal — Summary of Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence from two appellants whose appeals were heard after leave was granted by a single judge. Appellant 1 pleaded guilty on 8 July 2024 at The Court to conspiracy to rob (under section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977) and to possession of a class A controlled drug (under section 5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971). Appellant 2 pleaded guilty a few days later to conspiracy to rob; during a related trial the court offered no evidence on a count of conspiracy to possess an imitation firearm and acquitted him on that count, and he then pleaded guilty to a newly added lesser count of possession of an imitation firearm at the time of committing a schedule 1 offence.

On 23 May 2025 before Judge Cohen, Appellant 1 was sentenced to eight years three months' imprisonment for conspiracy to rob with no separate penalty for the drug possession count. Appellant 2 was sentenced to ten years nine months for conspiracy to rob and five years for the possession count, the latter concurrent, producing an overall sentence of ten years nine months.

The offending arose from a planned robbery at Company A's branch in The City on 19 March 2024. Appellant 1 worked at the branch and provided access and information; Appellant 2 entered the store wearing a tabard supplied by Appellant 1, threatened and bound the store employee with an imitation firearm, and removed approximately £8,500 in cash. Following a police investigation, both appellants were arrested in June 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge applied the correct sentencing guideline (professionally planned commercial robbery guideline versus street/less sophisticated commercial robbery guideline).
2. Whether the starting point(s) adopted by the sentencing judge were excessive.
3. Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive (including whether there was insufficient disparity between the two appellants' sentences).
4. Whether the sentencing judge gave appropriate credit for guilty pleas.
5. Whether the judge erred in other aspects of categorisation and assessment of aggravating/mitigating factors.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant 1's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Baloch)

• The judge erred in categorising the offending as falling within the highest category of the professionally planned commercial robbery guideline (should have been a lower category or the less sophisticated guideline).
• The starting point of 12 years was too high.
• There was insufficient disparity between the sentences imposed on the two appellants.
• The overall sentence of eight years three months was manifestly excessive.
• There was insufficient planning/sophistication given that the getaway driver was acquitted, only two people were implicated, use of personal mobile phones and a basic disguise undermined the professional planning characterisation.

Appellant 2's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Thompson)

• The sentencing judge applied the wrong guideline (should not have used the professionally planned commercial robbery guideline).
• The starting point adopted was too high and the sentence before credit was excessive.
• Insufficient credit (10%) was given for the guilty plea to the conspiracy to rob count, given the plea timing.
• Specific factual findings relied on by the judge (e.g. reconnaissance/"recce") were challenged as not supported by the evidence, and inconsistent with the acquittal of Individual A (the driver).

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court (Lord Justice Fraser delivering the judgment) reviewed the facts, sentencing exercise and submissions. It emphasised that because part of a related trial had been conducted (including witness evidence), the sentencing judge was especially well placed to assess the facts and to decide which guideline to apply. The appeal court applied the standard appellate test that it will only interfere with a sentencing judge's evaluative judgment if it is obviously wrong or wrong in principle.

The court analysed the factual indicia of professional and organised planning: insider access provided by Appellant 1, timing of the robbery to coincide with cash-counting, knowledge of security arrangements and PIN-controlled doors, the use of a staff tabard and hat as disguise, cable ties and an imitation firearm, use of a getaway car and mobile-phone conduct consistent with planning. These features supported the sentencing judge's choice of the professionally planned commercial robbery guideline and classification in the high culpability category (category 1A harm assessment with a starting point of 16 years and range 12–20 years before adjustment).

The court further noted the judge's consideration of dangerousness (rejected in the statutory sense), his movement to the bottom of the applicable range for reasons given (including improvement in the victim's condition and the acquittal of a co-defendant), and his application of mitigation and plea discounts (10% for Appellant 2; 25% for Appellant 1). The appeal court found no error of principle in those adjustments and concluded the resulting sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

APPEALS DISMISSED

Direct effect: The sentences imposed by Judge Cohen were upheld — Appellant 1's sentence of eight years three months for conspiracy to rob (with no separate penalty for the drug possession count) and Appellant 2's total sentence of ten years nine months (concurrent five-year sentence on the imitation firearm possession count) remain in force.

No broader precedent was identified or established by the opinion; the court applied established appellate principles and declined to disturb the sentencing judge's evaluative exercise.