WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.[2021] EWCA Crim 433Case No 202002445/A4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Tuesday 2 March 2021
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before
LORD JUSTICE SINGHMRS JUSTICE WHIPPLE DBETHE RECORDER OF WESTMINSTERHER HONOUR JUDGE DEBORAH TAYLOR(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REGINACrownV
Between
MICHAEL CHARLTON__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JSTel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR N ROBINSON appeared for Appellant_________J U D G M E N T
[1]pleaded guilty to one count of possessing an imitation firearm with intent, contrary to section 16A of the Firearms Act 1968, and one count of robbery, contrary to section 8 of the Theft Act 1968. He was sentenced at Leicester Crown Court on 18 September 2020 by Miss Recorder Levett. She imposed a term of three years' imprisonment for the firearms offence to run concurrently with the term of eight years' imprisonment for the[2]robbery. Consequential orders were made which are not relevant for present purposes.[3]any significant credit for the appellant's personal mitigation.[4]get into a vehicle. She took the licence number of that vehicle which she gave to the[5]police. The incident was caught on CCTV. Subsequent enquiries showed that the appellant had travelled up from Bournemouth that day to Leicester in a stolen vehicle. Before he entered Mercer's newsagents he had looked at a number of other shops, apparently then choosing to enter this one. He was arrested on 14 March 2019 and gave no comment interviews.[6]described how this event had had a significant effect on her and her family.[7]she referred to R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592.[8]great and was something he had to control.[9]appeal against that categorisation.[10]business. That meant the starting point was increased considerably.[11]guilty plea.[12]imprisonment concurrent.[13]succinct submissions before us today.[14]a drug habit, becoming dependent on heroin from around 1995 when he was in his early twenties, having started taking drugs in his late teens. He has tried and has been dependent on other class A drugs too. He married in 2009 but his wife died tragically in a house fire. She had significant mental health problems and he was her carer. He has a 10-year-old daughter who was adopted because he was unable to care for her.[15]this time.[16]commit the robbery.[17]to make decisions about right or wrong might have been clouded by the symptoms of psychosis and the need to get away. It is also possible that his symptoms might have clouded his ability to think about the consequences of his actions, as he felt threatened by the aliens and therefore wanted to run away." On the matter of intent, Dr Rathod concluded that his capacity to form an intention would have been "significantly affected" by his need to get away and she said this:
"While he may have had the mental capacity to form intent, he would have been guided by the delusions of persecution."
It was, she thought, "highly likely that his capacity to form intent and to weigh up the consequences of[18]his actions were guided by the symptoms of psychosis and his need to get away."[19]wife and the bereavement that followed. The appellant was, by Dr Rathod's own commentary, aware at some level of what he was doing when he carried out the robbery, threatening violence with an imitation gun. Dr Rathod suggests he "may" have known what he was doing. We would go further, as did the judge, self-evidently from her remarks. From the facts of this offence, it is clear that it was planned and deliberate, and that the appellant did know what he was doing. The offence involved stealing a vehicle, travelling some distance, looking for a suitable business to rob, arming himself with an imitation weapon and concealing his appearance, then robbing the premises in broad daylight in the middle of the day when the shop was empty of customers. The appellant's mental health issues, to a large extent self-inflicted by long term drug dependency and possibly by the failure to pick up a Methadone
prescription to which he was entitled, cannot in these circumstances weigh very heavily in
[20]his favour when it comes to sentence.[21]passages already.[22]set out already it was not strong mitigation.[23]very recently been released from prison and at the time accommodated in an approved premises. The attack was planned. There was an element of targeting because Miss Meachem was alone at the till and the appellant concealed his identity with a Balaclava.[24]this appeal. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk