R v Daniel Robinson

R v Daniel Robinson

The offence was properly categorised as category 3B with medium culpability and minimal harm attributable to the appellant; aggravating factors outweighed mitigation, justifying a 20-month sentence, which should not be suspended due to the seriousness of the offence and the need for immediate custody.

Parties
Appellant: Daniel Robinson; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Robbery, Sentencing, Appeal Against Sentence, Mitigation, Categorisation of Harm and Culpability
Criminal Law Robbery Sentencing Appeal Against Sentence Mitigation Categorisation of Harm and Culpability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Robinson

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for robbery was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Proper categorisation of the offence under the Robbery Guideline
  3. 3 Appropriateness of suspending the sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was properly categorised as category 3B with medium culpability and minimal harm attributable to the appellant; aggravating factors outweighed mitigation, justifying a 20-month sentence, which should not be suspended due to the seriousness of the offence and the need for immediate custody.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • sentence reduced from 28 months to 20 months' imprisonment
  • sentence not suspended