Jenkins & Ors, R v

LORD JUSTICE MOSES: The issue in these appeals against sentence is the appropriate starting point in respect of a number of serious professional armed robberies aimed at security guards delivering large sums of money to building societies at night. As the judge correctly pointed out, the main participant and principal involved in these robberies was a dangerous gunman called Haines. These three appellants became involved in different ways in five robberies over a six month period between March and October 2006 at various places in Kent. The point that is urged upon us in different ways is whether 25 years is too high a starting point in respect of this type of robbery.

The principal participant was a man called Haines. Dean Jenkins, one of the appellants, now aged 40, was described as his right-hand man. All these robberies involved the use of sawn-off shotguns and were planned and targeted on security guards delivering to building societies at night after they had closed at a time when the maximum amount of cash it was hoped would be taken.

In the first two robberies Haines and Dean Jenkins were both carrying shotguns, were disguised in balaclavas; they confronted the guards. The last three were committed by one man alone wielding a firearm with Dean Jenkins the getaway driver. Grehan, now aged 23, was the second getaway driver to be used when the robbers transferred from one vehicle to another and was involved in two offences of conspiracy to rob and a third robbery in which the others, Dean Jenkins and Haines, were also involved. He was also the lookout at the final robbery. David Jenkins, the father of Dean Jenkins, a much older man of 61, was involved in only one robbery.

It is unnecessary to go into the detail of all five robberies. One will suffice to show the sort of robberies they were. It happened at 9.45 in the evening on 20th March 2006. Two cash custodians, as they are called, got out of a Group 4 security van and started refilling the cash machine. On the third trip, with a box containing cash cassettes, the door to the bank was opened and the two assailants with balaclavas and guns attacked and threatened one of them with a gun held to his head. They were told that if they did not hand over the money they would be shot. On another robbery one of the security guards was struck on the helmet with the butt of the gun. The final fifth robbery was perpetrated under the observation of armed police. They saw the man Haines carrying a sawn-off shotgun wearing a balaclava, heard a guard told to lie on the floor and not to move lest he be shot. Dean Jenkins was outside acting as the getaway driver as Haines ran from the premises. When the police shouted a warning "armed police" he discharged his weapon towards them, they returned fire and shot him three times. Haines died at the scene. Grehan was arrested nearby and David Jenkins, who had driven away from the scene at some stage and whose part in that final robbery will never become clear (because he has never told the truth about it) was arrested some 30 minutes later.

The judge rightly described the leader as being a man who showed himself capable of extreme violence. This is important because each of those who participated in their different ways bears responsibility for the consequences of such violence. The judge pointed out the number of robberies in which it is apparent that those who had continued to participate regarded themselves as being invincible and the gravity of the offence is demonstrated on an occasion when Haines chose to discharge his weapon in order to make good his escape and for the benefit of the others.

Dean Jenkins, a man aged 40, had never been in trouble before, nor had Grehan, now aged 23, nor had Dean Jenkins' father. This is a curious feature of the case because none of them could properly be described as "career criminals", although Dean Jenkins and to an extent Ben Grehan in their persistence in carrying out these robberies demonstrated a clear wish, in the belief that they would not be caught, to embark upon such a career. But it is noteworthy that in reading about their background no one, in the light of their respectable past and absence of previous convictions, could possibly have predicted that they would involve themselves in offences of this gravity.

It is beyond question that those who do choose to involve themselves in such offences must expect some of the most serious sentences which it is open to the court to pass short of life imprisonment. It is of note that when it comes to reviewing the cases which cast light on the appropriate range, it seems that they are on the low side. The maximum, reserved for the most serious offences short of life imprisonment, appears to be in the region of 25 years and certainly Turner, which appears still to be cited out of deference to the Lord Justice who presided in that case, has no longer any relevance as a reliable guide to the appropriate level of sentencing. That guidance for robberies of this gravity has to be found in, for example, McCartney and others [2003] EWCA Crim. 1372 and, although it was not cited to us, we draw attention to the case of R v Atkinson and Smith [2005] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 34 at page 206. That seems to us to support the view that the maximum sentence for a number of armed robberies, where violence is actually used, appears to be in the region of 25 years. These appellants draw attention to the level of sentencing which might be regarded on the low side in McCartney: a career criminal facing some 20 robberies was sentenced to 22 years.

Thus the question arises first in these appeals as to what the appropriate sentence was for Dean Jenkins. He was sentenced in total to 17 years' imprisonment for the first count of robbery with 15 years' imprisonment to run concurrent for conspiracy to rob. That sentence of 17 years' imprisonment was ordered giving full credit for his plea of guilty; it represents a starting point on a trial of a sentence in the region of 25 years.

In the case of Dean Jenkins we are reluctantly persuaded, in order to achieve consistency to accept that that starting point was too high. We reiterate that we suspect these sentences are on the low side for cases in which robbers are prepared to use loaded guns and to fire them in seeking to attack security guards. We think it right, in order to be consistent, to regard the starting point as being in the region of 21 years' imprisonment. To give the credit which the judge felt it appropriate to give this man of no previous convictions for his plea the total sentence should therefore be one of 15 years' imprisonment. We shall achieve that result by reducing the sentence on count 1 of robbery of 17 years' imprisonment to one of 15 years' imprisonment and to make the other sentences to run concurrent, making 15 years' imprisonment in total with a direction that time spent on remand should count towards that total sentence. The time spent on remand was 364 days.

Having reached that result, we now have to consider what was appropriate in the case of Grehan. A young man, again of no previous convictions, 23, who appears to have been surprisingly drawn into these offences because of his close relationship and indeed dependence upon the family of Jenkins. His basis of plea as a getaway driver was accepted and the question then arises as to whether the total sentence passed upon him of 12 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive or not. We wish to stress that we are particularly influenced in his case by the unusual but clear and helpful lengths to which a prison officer has gone in describing his admirable behaviour in prison. It is plain that a substantial sentence such as this will have a very heavy impact upon a young man who has never been to prison before. It is therefore all the more creditworthy that this young man has behaved so well as a model prisoner, not only in taking what advantages may be gained from the prison sentence but also helping others. When one reads about that behaviour it is surely something that this court ought to bear in mind in striking upon the appropriate sentence, even though that was not information which could be available to the sentencing judge.

For all those reasons, we take the view that 12 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and his sentence in total should be reduced to 10 years' imprisonment, by reducing the 12 year sentences on count 1 and the two conspiracy counts to one of 10 years in total, with a direction that the time spent on remand should count towards the sentence.

That leaves the appellant David Jenkins who was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for robbery. The precise nature and reason for his participation remains unclear because he pleaded not guilty. He therefore gained for himself no advantage as a plea of guilty would have done and a proper and frank declaration of why and to what extent he participated was not available. But having regard to the fact that he was clearly drawn into this by his 40-year-old son and again was a man of no previous convictions who is not described as any risk to the public, and our reduction of the sentence for the main living participant, Dean Jenkins, we think that the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment should be reduced to one of eight years' imprisonment for the robbery. We pay particular heed to the fact that he was found not guilty by the jury of possession of a firearm and thus does not bear the responsibility of others for the dreadful violence and weapons which were used on the occasion of these robberies. In those circumstances his appeal is also allowed. The sentence of 10 years is reduced to one of eight years and the time spent of 180 days counting towards that sentence. These appeals are therefore allowed for those reasons.