Failure to specifically sentence in respect of robbery offence constituted an error of principle

Criminal law – sentencing – undue leniency – whether a sentence of four years with the final two years suspended imposed for robbery and possession of a shotgun was unduly lenient – possession of a double barrelled sawn off shotgun with intent to commit an indictable offence – s. 27(b)(i) of the Firearms Act 1964 as substituted by s. 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, and amended by s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 – s. 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 – s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 – whether there was a failure to engage with the requirement of s. 27B(4) which provides for a minimum terms of five years imprisonment unless a sentencing court is satisfied that there are exceptional and specific circumstances – whether the sentencing judge failed to attach appropriate weight to a number of aggravating factors – no specific sentence for count two – section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1951 – Sentencing Law and Practice Prof. O’Malley – each count of which a person stands convicted should be the subject of a separate and distinct sentence unless the court relates to a minor offence – failure of sentencing judge to specifically sentence the respondent in respect of the robbery offence constitutes an error of principle – sentence was unduly lenient, and outside the wide discretion enjoyed by the learned sentencing judge – concurrent sentences of seven years' imprisonment with the final two years suspended substituted – appeal allowed.