Joseph Neill [2019] EWCA Crim 1776

Joseph Neill [2019] EWCA Crim 1776 was an appeal against sentence heard by Mr Justice Spencer and Mr Justice Edis in which the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge to a two‑year immediate custodial term imposed for street robbery of an 80‑year‑old woman.

Mr Neill, then aged 22, had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to one offence of street robbery and was sentenced on 6 August 2019 at the Crown Court at Sheffield. The single judge granted leave on the ground that the sentencing judge may have sentenced on the basis of a factual error concerning the nature of the force used, rendering the sentence arguably manifestly excessive.

The offence occurred on the morning of 4 April 2019 when Patricia Jamieson, aged 80, alighted from a bus in Sheffield and began walking along the street. She became aware of Mr Neill, who was acting suspiciously. He first walked in front of her then paused so that he ended up behind her. Mrs Jamieson felt anxious and believed she was being followed. She then felt Mr Neill pulling at the strap of her handbag. He managed to pull the handbag away from her with sufficient force that she fell to the ground. She called out for help. The bag had contained £46 in cash, house keys, and a mobile telephone. Mrs Jamieson sustained a bruised and swollen left knee, a bruised left hip, and a bruised and swollen left ring finger. She was taken to hospital to ensure she had suffered no more serious injury.

Mr Neill was identified through CCTV and arrested the following day. He made full admissions in interview, stating that he had taken 84 diazepam tablets over the three days before the offence. He said he felt guilty afterwards and threw the handbag over a wall without taking anything from it, though police were unable to locate it. A Victim Personal Statement was provided which the sentencing judge took into account and described the psychological consequences as likely to be life‑changing.

The sentencing judge noted that Mr Neill was of previous good character and had significant personal mitigation. A pre‑sentence report, a psychiatric report, and testimonials had been provided. The psychiatric report indicated that Mr Neill suffered from post‑traumatic stress disorder as a result of events during his upbringing for which he was receiving ongoing treatment. He was remorseful and presented a low risk of reoffending. The judge treated the offence as out of character, spontaneous and not premeditated, but committed against a vulnerable victim whilst under the influence of drugs.

The judge categorised the offence under the relevant sentencing guideline as falling within category 2B, concluding that more than minimal force had been used, which placed culpability in category B (medium), and that the level of harm fell within category 2. The starting point for that category is four years’ custody, with a range of three to six years. The judge increased the starting point to 54 months to reflect the aggravating features of the location of the offence, the vulnerability of the complainant, and the fact that Mr Neill was under the influence of drugs at the time. He then reduced that figure to three years to reflect the considerable personal mitigation and applied a full one‑third discount for the timely guilty plea, arriving at a sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The judge concluded that the sentence could not be suspended because of the serious circumstances of the offence.

The issue which had troubled the single judge, and which formed the central ground of appeal, concerned a statement by the sentencing judge that Mr Neill had dragged the victim along the ground, albeit for a short distance. Mr Neill disputed that this had occurred. Analysis of the full evidence, including a transcript of the victim’s Achieving Best Evidence interview, revealed that whilst Mrs Jamieson had been pulled to the ground by the force with which Mr Neill wrenched the bag from her, causing her to fall and impact the ground hard enough to produce the injuries, she was not thereafter dragged along the ground. The appellant had pulled on the bag hard enough to wrest it from her grasp before any dragging could occur. Counsel for both sides agreed that on this point there was no substantial factual dispute. The sentencing judge may have formed his impression in part from the wording of the Victim Personal Statement, which referred to the appellant dragging her to the ground to take a purse.

Mr Smith, appearing for Mr Neill, submitted that this was a short, fast‑moving incident in which the bag was quickly dragged from the victim’s hand. Although there was use of more than minimal force, in comparison with other cases falling within medium culpability category B (which include the use of weapons to frighten or threaten violence), this offence should fall towards the lower end of that bracket. He contended that the only basis on which the judge could have concluded otherwise would have been the finding that the victim was dragged along the ground, which did not in fact happen.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the sentencing judge had been under a misapprehension about the precise sequence of events at the moment the bag was finally wrested from the victim. However, the Court held that the question which mattered was not whether Mrs Jamieson was dragged along the ground, but whether more than minimal force was used. On any view more than minimal force plainly was used, meaning that the judge was fully entitled to take a starting point appropriate to a category 2B offence, which he had correctly determined it to be. The aggravating features had properly been factored into the sentence by increasing the figure from four years to four and a half years. The judge had then made a very substantial reduction for the personal mitigation before applying the one‑third discount for the guilty plea. Leaving the erroneous finding of fact entirely out of account, the Court considered that the process of reasoning could not be faulted. The sentence of two years’ imprisonment was described as merciful in view of the substantial discount for personal mitigation and in any event was not manifestly excessive.

The Court also agreed that even though the custodial term was at a level which in law was capable of being suspended, it would have been wrong to take that course. This was a very serious offence against a vulnerable victim, pursued with as much persistence as was necessary to complete it. Street robbery is a serious crime for which, in line with the guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences, appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody. In short, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, the Court finding no error in principle and no manifest excess in the two‑year immediate term imposed.