R v Marcus Spears

On 7 February 2025, in the Crown Court at Birmingham, the appellant was sentenced to two years nine months' imprisonment for an offence of robbery, to which he had pleaded guilty at trial.

He now appeals against that sentence with the leave of the single judge.

The offence occurred on 12 June 2024 at about 2.30 pm at a pawnbroker's shop in Birmingham. The appellant had gone into the shop to enquire about selling three small pieces of scrap gold. He was asked for proof of identity and to provide documentation confirming his real identify. Whilst he was in the shop, Jordan Howell (a man known to the appellant) entered. Howell began by rifling through a customer's shopping trolley, then approached the desk where the appellant's details were being entered onto the system. His behaviour made the attendant uncomfortable. He and the appellant can be seen on the CCTV footage speaking to each other. Howell then tried to open the door which led to the counter-side of the shop, but it was locked.

The manager of the store had been out to the shops. When she returned, she went to access the private area. As she did so, Howell jumped through the door behind her. He grabbed the manager around her neck and aggressively pushed her into a table. He then pushed her towards the second secure door, shouting "Open the fucking door!" She entered the incorrect code, whereupon Howell grabbed her around the neck and punched her in the face. The manager entered the correct code and Howell rushed into the secure area. The other attendant had by then managed to secure herself in a stockroom.

The manager ran to the front of the shop to seek help. She attempted to close the front door to keep Howell in the shop. The appellant was stood by the door and prevented her from closing it. He used a door stop to wedge the door open, having first tried to prop it with a chair.

Meanwhile, Howell was emptying the till. The appellant then urged him to leave, shouting "Go now, go, go, go". Both men fled.

When interviewed, the appellant denied any knowledge of the robbery. He maintained that stance until trial when, as the judge expressly recorded, the jury had already been sworn when he changed his plea to guilty.

His plea was entered on the basis that he had been legitimately pawning his own jewellery when Howell came into the shop. He did not know that Howell was planning a robbery. He did not want to become involved, but accepts that he did wedge the door open so that Howell could leave the shop and also so that he could get his own bag out of the shop. He accepted that he had assisted in the robbery, albeit at a very late stage. He also maintained that he was remorseful. He described his actions as "stupid" and "foolish".

In sentencing the appellant, the judge declined to allow any credit for the guilty plea, given the very late stage at which it was entered, namely after the jury were sworn. He acknowledged that the basis of plea, which was supported by the CCTV footage, provided some minor mitigation based upon the role the appellant played. However, he said that the reality was that both offenders were in it together. Although the appellant had initially been a legitimate customer, it would be absurd to suggest that the robbery just happened. There must have been some agreement between the appellant and Howell, albeit, being faithful to the basis of his plea, the judge proceeded on the basis that the agreement was formed when the appellant was already in the shop.

In the case of Howell, the judge identified that his offending was to be assessed by reference to the sentencing guidelines as falling within the medium culpability category, and category 2 harm, albeit towards the upper end of category 2, as it fell just short of serious harm.

The appellant, who was 31 years old at the date of sentence, had multiple previous convictions, including for theft and offences against the person. He was on licence at the time of the offence. Having said that the appellant arguably played an important role in the robbery, the judge identified the starting point as two years' custody. He uplifted that to two years and nine months to reflect that the offending was aggravated by the previous convictions.

By his grounds of appeal, the appellant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive. It is submitted that, given the basis of plea, the appellant ought to have been sentenced on the basis that he fell into category C3 within the sentencing guidelines, which would provide a starting point of one year's imprisonment, and a range of up to three years. It is also observed that no credit was allowed for the guilty plea. Although no separate ground of appeal was advanced in relation to that, Mr Lally has made it clear this morning that he maintains that the judge ought to have allowed credit for the guilty plea, albeit that it came at a late stage.

We do not agree that the judge departed from the basis of plea. We consider that he correctly categorised the appellant's offending. Even accepting that the appellant only became involved at a late stage, it is beyond doubt that he participated, despite it being obvious that Howell was using force on the female manager to enter the secure part of the shop. Screaming can be heard on the CCTV footage, and the appellant would have heard that too. He actively joined in the robbery, which undoubtedly caused more than minimum harm. The judge treated the appellant as falling into category C2. Arguably, it was generous to treat this as a lesser culpability case on a strict reading of the guidelines. Although the appellant did not himself use or threaten force, this became a joint enterprise in which fairly significant force was used. The appellant was not involved through coercion, intimidation or exploitation; nor did mental disability play a part. Accordingly, the other category C factors did not apply.

However, standing back, the judge took an entirely sensible approach to culpability. He fairly reflected the appellant's basis of plea and the relative roles of each offender. The uplift to reflect the appellant's offending history, albeit that he had no previous convictions for robbery, was entirely justified in all the circumstances.

Further, the appellant can have no complaint that he was not afforded any credit for his guilty plea. He waited until his trial was underway and a jury had been sworn, before he entered that plea. Having regard to the guideline on reduction in sentence for a guilty plea, the judge was entitled to take the view that he did, that the appellant had exhausted any credit that may have been available had he entered a plea earlier.

Accordingly, this appeal against sentence is dismissed.