Stuart Wigley [2019] EWCA Crim 1347

The appellant changed his plea to guilty to robbery and possession of an imitation firearm and was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment for the former with 18 months concurrent for the latter.

The appellant had been employed by Park Lane Casino next door to the Hilton Hotel. After his employment came to an end, he entered the Hilton by the back entrance and tried unsuccessfully to get through an internal door to the casino. A few days later, heavily disguised and wearing a balaclava, he entered the casino main entrance. He went to the cashier’s counter, jumped over and helped himself to £36,000 in cash from the till before leaving, although he was followed. He was seen to discard his balaclava and boiler suit and was in possession of an imitation firearm which had not been produced at the robbery.

He pleaded guilty after initially submitting a defence statement setting out an alibi and making a considerable number of information requests causing additional work and delay. This was a professionally planned, commercial robbery and although he hadn’t produced the imitation firearm, he had taken it should the need arise. The appellant was of good character and, at the time of offending, it had been suspected he may have a terminal illness, although he did not.

It was argued on appeal that it was wrong to use the imitation firearm as an aggravating element when the offence was sentenced separately. The approach amounted to double counting. Secondly, the categorisation as 2B was wrong, it should have been 2C. Finally, the judge unreasonably discounted mitigation advanced.

Held: the judge properly reflected the totality of the offending, including the firearm offence, in the one substantive sentence. The offence was serious, even in category 2 terms and the judge was entirely justified in saying it fell in the upper part of the 2B bracket and in fixing on 7 years as the starting point. The judge acknowledged the mitigation, impact on the appellant’s family, the effect of the potential diagnosis and his good character. However the sentence was reached the final sentence was not manifestly excessive.