Tyrone Johnson [2019] EWCA Crim 1689

The appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

The appellant drove his co-accused to two branches of a pawnbroker. He waited outside in the car while the co-accused went inside snatching jewellery from staff members. His defence at trial was that he had given the male a lift and had no idea he planned to rob the shops.

It was agreed the appropriate definitive guideline was that for less sophisticated commercial robbery. It was also agreed that both offences demonstrated medium culpability (B). The grounds for appeal were that the total sentence was manifestly excessive, and it was wrong to find the appellant played a leading role or that he had exploited his co-accused.

Held: the judge was ideally placed to make an informed assessment of the relative involvement of the two men. He had seen the psychiatric reports on the c-accused who was unfit to plead.

Held: the appellant’s antecedents and circumstances of the offences fortified the judge’s findings. The judge’s approach could not be faulted, and while the sentence was a stern one, it was not manifestly excessive.
The appeal was dismissed.