[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Pratchet, R. [2008] EWCA Crim 155 (23 January 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/155.html Cite as: [2008] EWCA Crim 155

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		23 January 2008

1. MR JUSTICE WILKIE: This is the appeal of Perry Pratchet, now aged 19, against a sentence of three years' detention in a young offender institution imposed at Snaresbrook Crown Court by the learned Recorder on 20th September 2006, he having pleaded guilty on 16th July at a plea and case management hearing to a single offence of attempted robbery. The appeal is with leave of the single judge.
2. The victim was an art dealer and at about 1.00 am on 11th March 2007 he was making his way home. He was approached by two men, one of whom (the appellant) asked him for money. He said: "No, I'm sorry". The victim had been the subject of robberies on two previous occasions and was concerned about these two men and so crossed the road, but they followed him. The appellant said: "Are you starting?" When the victim did not reply, he punched him on the left side of his face, cutting his lip, bruising his cheek and aggravating a jaw fracture sustained in one of the previous robberies. The victim fell to the ground and was not sure whether he lost consciousness.
3. A more graphic description of the attack was provided by two passers-by in a car who saw the assault. They described it as a ferocious, sustained attack followed by an attempt to steal from the victim - something the victim himself was not able to recall. One of those witnesses saw the appellant strike the victim in the face very hard, strike him to the chest and face, then saw the victim cross the road, the appellant punched him again to the chest and headbutted him to the face causing him to drop to the floor in the middle of the road. The appellant then repeatedly continued to hit the victim whilst he lay prone on the floor, putting his hands into the victim's jacket pockets as he lay on the floor, the victim not moving at all. That witness went to assist the victim. He flagged down a passing police car and the appellant was found hiding in a nearby graveyard. The victim was able to identify his attacker in an identification parade. The other occupant of the car saw that the victim was crying, clearly upset and shaken by the incident.
4. The appellant, as we have indicated, was aged 18 at the time of the robbery, 19 at the date of sentence. He had no relevant previous convictions. He had written to the court a letter expressing his shame and remorse for what he had done. It said that he had not planned it and he was very drunk at the time.
5. The learned Recorder said that he took into account the guilty plea and also the support of his family. His mother was in court at sentence and is indeed in court today. She had written to the judge indicating a wish to move from the area where it would appear she blamed others for getting the appellant into bad company. The judge, however, went on to say that this was a vicious and extremely horrific piece of violence committed in the streets on this unfortunate gentleman, but for the intervention of the witnesses it could have been much worse.
6. The judge did not have before him any particular detail of the injuries suffered by the victim and so he did not sentence on the basis of any further aggravation by reason of those possible serious injuries. He sentenced on the basis of the description given by the witnesses. He therefore imposed a sentence of three years' detention in a young offender institution. Mr Cohen has argued before us, as he did in the grounds of appeal, that this sentence of three years was manifestly excessive. It seems to us that we must assume that the judge gave full credit for the plea of guilty which had been a timely one and that therefore the sentence after trial which the judge used to base the three year sentence would have been one of four-and-a-half years.
7. Our attention has been drawn to the Sentencing Guidelines Council definitive guidance on robbery issued in July 2006. This is a scale two robbery where force was used resulting in injury to the victim of the street robbery or mugging variety. The starting point for a person of 17 is said to be three years' detention, whereas for an adult the starting point is four years. There are a number of aggravating and mitigating factors which are listed. Mr Cohen says that in this particular case there are mitigating factors in that it was an unplanned street robbery and there was clear evidence of remorse. On the other hand, there are, it seems to us, certain aggravating features. Certainly the fact is that although two persons were not actually involved in the attack to the point that the other man was either apprehended or charged, the victim was certainly confronted by two people initially and saw fit to move away from them. Furthermore, this offence was committed at night. It cannot be said that this victim was obviously a vulnerable victim, though in fact it turned out that he was particularly vulnerable to injury sustained by the beating because of the previous robberies of which he had been subject.
8. It seems to us that there is some merit in the argument of Mr Cohen that having regard to the guidelines a starting point after a trial of four-and-a-half years was manifestly excessive. Whilst this appellant was older than 17, he certainly was not an adult and therefore the starting point must have been somewhere between three and four years. Although there are aggravating features, not least the serious nature of the beating which he administered to the victim, there are also mitigating features. It seems to us that the appropriate starting point for sentence after a trial for this appellant would have been one of three-and-a-half years. Giving him full credit for his timely plea of guilty, it would have resulted in a sentence of 28 months -- ie two years and four months. It seems to us that to that extent the sentence of three years was manifestly excessive and therefore we allow this appeal to the extent of substituting for the sentence of three years, which we quash, one of two years and four months' detention.