Tyrone Conway [2019] EWCA Crim 1442

In Tyrone Conway [2019] EWCA Crim 1442 the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Picken and His Honour Judge Michael Chambers QC sitting as a Judge of the CACD) allowed an appeal against sentence, reducing a term of five years and six months’ imprisonment for robbery to one of four years and six months.

Mr Conway, aged 37, was convicted of robbery following a trial and sentenced by His Honour Judge Savill sitting at the Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester on 19 March 2019. The judge rightly described the offence as a very serious and unpleasant robbery committed in the early hours of the morning at an amusement arcade staffed by female employees.

On 5 November 2018 at approximately 3.25 am Ms Wendy Richards and Ms Alicia Mahon were working at Cashino, a 24-hour amusement arcade in Farnsworth. Mr Conway, who had previously been a customer at the premises and whose voice was recognised by Ms Richards, stormed into the premises shouting and holding a hammer. He had attempted to conceal his face with a scarf and hood. He went towards Ms Richards with the hammer raised above his head and demanded that she open the office door. When she told him she did not have the key he grabbed her by her clothing and dragged her back towards the door, threatening to smash it down if she did not open it. Ms Richards called for help. Ms Mahon ran from the toilet and opened the office door. The three entered the office where Mr Conway demanded money. His scarf fell down revealing his identity. He was given a quantity of cash estimated at between £200 and £300 before leaving. A police alarm was activated during the course of the robbery. Officers attended and were given the appellant’s name. He was arrested on 7 November. In interview he gave a prepared statement claiming to have been in bed at a friend’s house at the material time and then answered no comment to all questions.

The judge considered the Sentencing Guideline for robbery. He determined that this was a street robbery or less sophisticated commercial offence with culpability B because of the production of the hammer. He found no physical or psychological harm had been caused because the victims were made of stern stuff, placing the case in category 2, possibly towards category 3. The judge had read the victim personal statements. At least one woman had felt on edge since the incident and both found it frightening. The judge identified the starting point for a category 2B offence as four years. He identified a number of aggravating features: the appellant was subject to post-sentence supervision at the time, he was not of good character, he had concealed his identity, the offence was preplanned and it had been a prolonged incident in the sense that for the victims it would have seemed far longer. He considered the mitigating features: the appellant had a difficult upbringing, his previous convictions were not for serious offences and between 2006 and 2017 he had been drug free and in employment, showing that when not taking drugs he could lead a decent life. The judge imposed a sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment. Mr Conway was not entitled to any credit.

The grounds of appeal emphasised the unsophisticated nature of the robbery, the fact that fortunately the harm caused was minimal and the lack of relevant previous convictions. Counsel for the appellant, Mr Ross, suggested that the judge could and should have placed the case between category 2 and category 3 having regard to the amount of harm caused. The court was afforded the opportunity to see the CCTV recording.

The court considered that there was force in the appellant’s submissions. Whilst the judge was well placed to assess the seriousness of this unpleasant robbery, having heard the evidence and seen the CCTV recording, the case was rightly placed in category 2B giving a starting point of four years, with a notable aggravating factor of these being vulnerable premises in the early hours of the morning. However, the court considered that it could not be said that the offence was not intended to cause more than minimal harm. The court considered that insufficient weight had been attached to the very unsophisticated nature of the offence, the lack of lasting harm, fortunate as it was, and the fact that the appellant had no previous convictions for robbery or serious violence. In all the circumstances a sentence at the top of the category range for category 2B at five years and six months was manifestly excessive. A sentence of four years and six months properly reflected the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court therefore allowed the appeal to that extent by quashing the original sentence and substituting one of four years and six months’ imprisonment.

In short, the Court of Appeal reduced a sentence for robbery from five years and six months to four years and six months, holding that insufficient weight had been attached to the unsophisticated nature of the offence, the lack of lasting harm and the absence of previous convictions for robbery or serious violence.