Round & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant A pleaded guilty to three robbery counts and possessing a bladed article. Appellant B pleaded guilty to robbery and possessing an imitation firearm with intent. Further counts were ordered to lie on the file. [1][2]

Both appellants were sentenced in the Crown Court. Appellant A received an aggregate custodial sentence of eight years, while Appellant B received an aggregate custodial sentence of five years and six months, with an activated suspended sentence running concurrently. The sentencing judge found both appellants dangerous and purported to impose two-year global extended licence periods. [3][4]

The Registrar identified that the sentences appeared unlawfully structured because the extended licence periods had been attached globally and treated as capable of running concurrently. A subsequent slip-rule hearing did not correct the underlying problem. [5][6][7]

The offending included a knife-point robbery involving Witness A and a separate betting-shop robbery involving both appellants, during which Appellant A used knives, Appellant B used an imitation firearm, and a customer suffered superficial slash wounds. [8][9]

Both appellants appealed against sentence, principally challenging the findings of dangerousness and the alleged excessiveness of their sentences. Appellant B also challenged the consecutive sentence for the robbery and imitation-firearm offences. Leave to appeal was granted. [10][11][12]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge was entitled to find Appellant A dangerous and impose an extended sentence. [10][13][14]
2. Whether the sentencing judge was entitled to find Appellant B dangerous and impose an extended sentence. [11][15][16]
3. Whether Appellant B’s sentences for robbery and possessing an imitation firearm with intent should have run concurrently rather than consecutively. [11][17][18]
4. Whether the global extended licence periods attached to the aggregate custodial sentences were unlawful and required correction. [5][7][19][20]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant A's Arguments

• The finding that Appellant A was dangerous was said to be wrong, unreasonable and improper because he had no previous robbery convictions and limited convictions for violent offences. [13]
• It was argued that the offending was out of character, that Appellant A had accepted responsibility, expressed remorse, remained drug-free in custody and wished to engage with rehabilitative support. [13]
• It was submitted that no serious harm had resulted and that the risk assessment relied upon by the prosecution was flawed, particularly because another assessment had rated the risk of serious harm as low. [13][21][22][23]

Appellant B's Arguments

• It was argued that the robbery and imitation-firearm sentences arose from the same incident and should therefore have been concurrent, particularly because the weapon had been taken into account in categorising the robbery. [17]
• It was submitted that there was insufficient evidence to establish a significant risk of serious harm, relying on the risk assessments and the absence of an express dangerousness assessment by the pre-sentence-report author. [15]

The Crown's Position

• The Crown provided a written response and requested a slip-rule hearing to address the apparent sentencing error. [24]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that the determinate custodial element imposed on Appellant A was not manifestly excessive, having regard to the number of robberies, the bladed-article offence, the guideline range and the guilty-plea credit. [25][26]

The Court similarly accepted the proportionality of Appellant B’s determinate sentence before correcting the concurrency issue, while noting that the robbery and imitation-firearm offences arose from the same incident. [27][28][17][18]

Applying the statutory dangerousness test, the Court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to consider the offences, previous convictions, patterns of behaviour and information about each appellant, including the pre-sentence reports. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]

In Appellant A’s case, the Court regarded the progression from theft and burglary to two knife-point robberies, combined with drug-related relapses, as an escalating pattern of offending. The judge was therefore entitled to rely on the detailed risk assessment and was justified in finding Appellant A dangerous. [13][23][14]

In Appellant B’s case, the Court relied on his extensive history of acquisitive and violent offending, the use of an imitation firearm and the pattern of behaviour linked to drug use and impulsivity. The Court emphasised that the dangerousness decision was for the judge, assisted by but not delegated to the report author. [15][16]

The Court concluded that extended sentences were necessary in both cases to protect the public because ordinary determinate sentences would not suffice. [37]

The Court held that the original global extension periods were unlawful. An extended licence period had to form part of the extended sentence imposed on a particular count and could not be attached to a global sentence or ordered to run concurrently. [38][19][20]

To give effect to the sentencing judge’s clear intention, the Court substituted lawful extended sentences. For Appellant A, it imposed extended sentences of five years on Counts 1 and 3, each comprising four years’ custody and a one-year extended licence period, with Count 3 consecutive to Count 1. The concurrent sentences on Counts 2 and 4 remained unchanged. [39][40]

For Appellant B, the Court imposed an extended sentence of seven years on the robbery count, comprising five years’ custody and a two-year extended licence period, and ordered the 18-month imitation-firearm sentence to run concurrently. [41]

The Court was satisfied that the substituted sentences did not contravene the restriction on increasing sentences on appeal because the sentencing judge had intended to impose extended sentences of at least the relevant length. [42]

Holding and Implications

The appeals succeeded only to the extent necessary to correct the unlawful sentence structures and Appellant B’s concurrency issue; they were otherwise dismissed. [41][43]

The direct effect was that lawful extended sentences were substituted for both appellants, while the remaining sentences were preserved as specified by the Court. The opinion identifies no broader implication beyond correcting the unlawful structures in these sentences.