Mayers & Ors, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 1552 (04 July 2018)

Mayers & Ors, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 1552 (04 July 2018)

The sentencing judge erred in applying findings of dangerousness collectively without sufficient individual assessment and failed to adequately distinguish between the roles and culpability of each appellant. The case was exceptional and justified sentences above the guideline range, but the sentences imposed were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Crim 1552
Parties
Respondent: Regina; 1st Appellant: Aaron Mayers; 2nd Appellant: Darren Myers; 3rd Appellant: Nana Danquah; 4th Appellant: Conner Miller; 5th Appellant: Jake Jenks; 6th Appellant: Nasir Joe Tommy Alieu; 7th Appellant: Lee George Baker; 8th Appellant: Faisal Issah; 9th Appellant: John Smillie; 10th Appellant: Glenn Kenny
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; sentences quashed and substituted with reduced determinate sentences for all appellants; findings of dangerousness quashed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Dangerousness Assessment, Robbery, Conspiracy to Rob, Sentencing Guidelines, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Sentencing Dangerousness Assessment Robbery Conspiracy to Rob Sentencing Guidelines Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Aaron Mayers

1st Appellant

Darren Myers

2nd Appellant

Nana Danquah

3rd Appellant

Conner Miller

4th Appellant

Jake Jenks

5th Appellant

Nasir Joe Tommy Alieu

6th Appellant

Lee George Baker

7th Appellant

Faisal Issah

8th Appellant

John Smillie

9th Appellant

Glenn Kenny

10th Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge applied the correct sentencing guideline for robbery in a dwelling
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive
  3. 3 Whether the findings of dangerousness under section 226A Criminal Justice Act 2003 were justified for certain appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in applying findings of dangerousness collectively without sufficient individual assessment and failed to adequately distinguish between the roles and culpability of each appellant. The case was exceptional and justified sentences above the guideline range, but the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive for several appellants. The findings of dangerousness for Danquah, Myers, Mayers, Alieu, and Baker could not stand. Determinate sentences were substituted for all appellants, with reductions reflecting individual roles, mitigation, and absence of recent relevant convictions.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; sentences quashed and substituted with reduced determinate sentences for all appellants; findings of dangerousness quashed.

Orders

  • Danquah: sentence reduced to 18 years' imprisonment (determinate)
  • Myers: sentence reduced to 18 years' imprisonment (determinate) for conspiracy to rob and 3 years for possession of disguised firearm, consecutive