R v Jonathan Oriba
[2024] EWCA Crim 495
R v Ben Murphy & Anor
11 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 379
Court of Appeal
Two brothers robbed a jewelry store. They were caught and sentenced to long prison terms. The appeals court said the sentences were fair because the robbery was planned, they used weapons, and one brother had a criminal record. The court didn't think the sentences were too harsh.
Key Facts
- •Ben Murphy (BM) and George Murphy-Bristow (GMB) were convicted of robbery at Luxe Jewellers.
- •The robbery involved the use of latex masks, a hatchet-style axe, and a large knife.
- •An employee was restrained with cable ties.
- •A Rolex watch valued at £15,000 was stolen.
- •Police found robbery paraphernalia, including masks and weapons, in GMB's car.
- •BM had two prior convictions for similar offences.
- •Both applicants initially appealed their convictions, but later abandoned those appeals.
- •The Recorder sentenced BM to 18 years and GMB to 13 years (12 years for robbery + 1 year consecutive for possession of robbery kit).
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for professionally planned commercial robbery (Category A1).
Sentencing Guidelines
Consideration of previous convictions as aggravating factors.
Case law
Categorization of harm based on the value of goods targeted, not necessarily obtained.
Sentencing Guidelines; R v Khan [2017] EWCA Crim 440
The use of a bladed weapon as indicating high culpability.
Sentencing Guidelines
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence refused for both applicants.
The Recorder's categorization and sentencing were found to be correct and within the guidelines. The previous convictions of BM justified the lengthier sentence. The argument that the robbery was a 'failed attempt' was rejected.
Ground 1 (Value of Stock) refused.
The Recorder considered the planned nature of the robbery and the likely value of stolen goods, not just the £15,000 watch actually taken.
Ground 2 (Categorisation) refused.
The categorization of the offence as A1 was correct, given the planning, use of weapons (even if unused), and the targeting of high-value goods.
Ground 3 (BM): Disparity refused.
The six-year difference in sentences was justified by BM's prior convictions for similar offences.
Ground 3 (GMB): Failed Attempt refused.
The robbery was not a failed attempt; the limited success was due to the shop's security system.