The defendants had been convicted of several robberies.
Held: ‘in the case of Valentine we acknowledge that there was material here which indicated that the offender was taking seriously the courses that he was undertaking in the hope that he may better himself hereafter, the fact is that, for the number of robberies in question, 3 years’ imprisonment was quite simply inadequate. Even giving full credit for a plea, the only proper sentence in his case is one of 6 years’ imprisonment and that is the sentence that we impose. We do so on each of the robbery counts to be served concurrently. As far as the taking and driving away offence is concerned, that will be served concurrently. So the total sentence will be 6 years’ imprisonment.’
and ‘As far as the offender Jackson is concerned, we indicated at the outset that we considered that the appropriate sentence in his case was one of 4 years’ imprisonment, giving him credit for his plea of guilty. It seems to us that in all the circumstances, particularly bearing in mind the fact that he has been out of prison now for a short time, therefore having to be returned to prison carries with it an added element of punishment, and taking into account the reports that we have of his progress both in prison and since he was released from prison, the appropriate sentence is in total one of 3 years and 6 months. That sentence will be imposed in respect of each of the offences of robbery and will be served concurrently with each other, and the sentences imposed in relation to the taking and driving away will remain but will also be served concurrently.’
Latham LJ, Rafferty DBE, Andrew SmithJJ
 EWCA Crim 3223,  2 Cr App Rep (S) 46
England and Wales
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374447