Robbery Solicitors

Theft Act 1968, s.8

(1) A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

(2) A person guilty of robbery, or of an assault with intent to rob, shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life.

There are many different types of robbery but it is important that you get legal advice before committing yourself to interview under caution.

Use the MJP solicitors call out numbers 24/7 for you or a family member arrested for this type of offence.

The sentencing facts show how seriously the Courts take this type of offence.

Armed robbery

In R. v. Turner (B.J.),61 Cr.App.R. 67, the Court of Appeal said that the normal sentence for anyone taking part in a single offence of armed robbery was 15 years and the maximum total sentence for those who committed more than one robbery was 18 years. In R. v. Adams (David Anthony)[2000] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 274, CA, the Court of Appeal said that although Turner provided the starting point, the guidelines now had to be revised upwards in today's sentencing climate. A sentence of 25 years may be appropriate for a person found guilty of more than one offence and a sentence of more than 15 years may be appropriate for a person with a previous conviction for armed robbery who is found guilty of a single offence.

Street robberies, robberies of small businesses, and "less sophisticated commercial robberies"

In July, 2006, the Sentencing Guidelines Council issued a final guideline in relation to such offences. For the details thereof, see Appendix K-80 et seq. As to the importance of maintaining a differential in sentencing between a single offence or just a few offences, and a campaign of multiple robberies, see Att.-Gen.'s References (Nos 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 41 of 2006)(R. v. Blackwood)[2007] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 50, CA (such a campaign against small shops and similar premises committed by adults with knives, crowbars and other weapons being carried, and sometimes used, would merit sentences of the order of 15 years' imprisonment on conviction of offenders of previous good character).

Hijacking of cars

See R. v. Snowdon (Alexander),The Times, November 11, 2002, CA (pre-planned hijacking of a car would usually involve ramming from behind and would almost always involve at least two offenders, thereby increasing victim's fear and sense of helplessness, which would be even greater if the impact from behind was followed by violence and/ or the use of a weapon or the threat of such use; when the car stolen was particularly valuable the proceeds might well equate to robbing a bank or building society and the penalty should reflect that; a defendant, even where he had no prior convictions, convicted of several such offences, aggravated by the use or threat of additional violence, could expect at least 10 years' imprisonment on conviction). R. v. Snowdon (Alexander) ([2002] EWCA Crim 2347) was applied in R. v. Gbedje (Nanguy Ruddy)[2007] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 89, CA, and R. v. Khan (Fahad Tariq)[2007] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 95, CA.