Raithley, R. v

MR JUSTICE NICOL: This appellant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery. On 5th May 2009 he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Mitchell at Nottingham Crown Court to two years in a young offender institution. He appeals against that sentence with the leave of the single judge.

The victim was walking through the City Centre of Nottingham at about 9.45 pm on 19th September 2008 when he was accosted by two men wearing crash helmets. One ran up behind him and pressed what he thought to be a blade to his neck. He was told to hand over his stuff and was threatened with being shanked or stabbed if he did not do so. What the victim thought was a knife was held to his neck throughout the incident. It left a red mark. One of the men searched his pockets. A camera and a mobile phone were taken. Their value was about £400 in total. One of the robbers dropped a mobile phone. This was traced back to the appellant who was also the owner of a motor scooter which had been observed in the area. He was later confronted by the police who accused him of being one of the robbers. He burst into tears and admitted the offence. A Stanley knife was recovered from his bedroom.

The appellant was 17 at the time of the offence and 18 when he came to be sentenced. He pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. The appellant has no previous convictions. There were positive testimonials to his good character, including a petition signed by over 50 local people. He has had a troubled family life. His parents separated when he was 10 years old. He went to live with his mother who was an alcoholic. She died when he was about 15. His grandfather also died very shortly afterwards. The appellant then went to live with his father who, it seems, may have resented the impact which this had on his own plans to emigrate.

The appellant's father ran a shop in an area of Nottingham which suffered from crime. It appears that the appellant may have become sucked into a gang as a result. He appears to have had no problems with alcohol or drugs. After a period of truanting at school he did obtain a number of GCSEs and then gained an apprenticeship in carpentry and has completed a two year college course. He claims that he has now severed his links with his previous gang. The pre-sentence report assessed there was a low risk of reoffending.

The guideline for street robberies by the Sentencing Guidelines Council is divided into three levels. Where a weapon is used to threaten the victim but the offender is under 18 the recommended starting point is three years' detention in the case of a contested trial. Since the judge in this case gave full credit for the appellant's plea, that would seem to have been the benchmark which was taken.

On behalf of the appellant, Mr Reynolds argues that this did not do justice to the substantial personal mitigation in this case. As the judge said, the courts take a most serious view of those who carry knives, still more so when they are used to commit robbery. It must have been terrifying for the victim in this case to have a knife held to his neck by two young robbers. We agree with the judge that a custodial sentence in this case was inevitable.

There is, however, a substantial amount of personal mitigation in this case. The death of the appellant's mother when he was 15 must have been a traumatic event. Coupled with the death of his grandfather and a difficult relationship with his father, it is perhaps not surprising that the appellant should have looked elsewhere for emotional support. It is also very much to his credit that he has cut the ties to his former associates and has undertaken a positive course of education and training. The number of people who have spoken up for him is impressive.

Pending his appeal he has been detained for over three months. While in detention he has behaved to a very high standard and his excellent conduct has resulted in him achieving enhanced status. He has undertaken further vocational training.

This was a serious offence and it has been said on a number of occasions by this court that those who carry knives and use them in the course of a robbery must expect to be sent to detention. That is a principle which this court will maintain. There can have been nothing wrong with the sentence as it was originally imposed. However, in view of the mitigation in this case and the submissions which have been made on the appellant's behalf, we consider that it is possible to take the merciful course of reducing the sentence to one of 15 months in a young offender institution. That is the sentence which will be substituted.