Coutts, R v

1. MR JUSTICE EDIS: Troy Lee Coutts is 29 years old. He pleaded guilty to an offence of robbery in the Crown Court at Minshull Street in Manchester and on 9 November 2017 received a sentence of imprisonment of 6 years.

2. This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against that sentence after refusal by the single judge.

3. It is unnecessary to set out the facts of this offence of robbery at any length. The applicant has the Criminal Appeal Office summary which contains a full account of what happened. It is enough to say that this was a robbery by two people, of which this applicant was one, committed against a vulnerable 69-year-old man after he had withdrawn money from a cash machine.

4. The judge, in sentencing, observed that both of the offenders were desperate class A drug addicts and found that both offenders were aware that the victim was vulnerable, in that he was, as the judge put it, in some way "mentally impaired". He said that this was a cold, calculated and cruel robbery committed in broad daylight against a vulnerable individual making his way back to supported accommodation.

5. For those reasons, the judge, having directed himself to the relevant guidance, found that the case was a category 1B case because of the significant psychological harm which it had caused. He placed it at the upper under of the relevant sentencing bracket and determined that there was no mitigation other than the plea.

6. The judge said that the starting point in the case of each offender was 8 years and in the case of this applicant gave a discount of 25 per cent because of the stage at which the plea had been tendered to derive his sentence of 6 years.

7. The applicant has a very significant criminal record which it is unnecessary to set out in any detail. It is also right to observe that in the pre-sentence report he was assessed as possessing a high risk of serious harm. A psychiatric report was also before the court which provided some further information for the judge.

8. The grounds of appeal suggest that the categorisation by the sentencing judge in category 1B was in error and alternatively, if that was the correct range, the sentence was too high within it once the aggravating and mitigating features were properly balanced.

9. The single judge gave reasons for concluding that that application is not arguable, observing that the sentence was severe but not arguably excessive. The reasons given by the single judge are set out in four paragraphs, which in summary are as follows:

10.

1. Both offenders were aware of the vulnerability of the victim.

11.

2. This was a premeditated robbery calculated with some care which caused significant harm.

12.

3. The aggravating features included the joint attack, the drugs, the vulnerability of the victim and the long series of previous convictions which the single judge referred to.

13.

4. The multiplicity of aggravating features would have justified moving outside the category range even if the offence were categorised in a lower category than that taken by the judge.

14. We agree with those observations by the single judge. In our judgment, the sentence of 8 years following trial, discounted as it was by 25 per cent, is not a day too long for this mean, serious and calculated offence.

15. Accordingly, this application is refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]