REGINA v Silvera

Factual and Procedural Background

On 17th August 2012, a burglary occurred at a residential property located at 16 Powerscroft Road, The City. The rear gate and basement window were forcibly broken to gain entry, and a laptop valued at £1,000 was stolen. The occupant was absent during the incident. A neighbour heard breaking glass and voices, subsequently alerting the police. The appellant was observed leaving the scene carrying the stolen laptop partially concealed in black clothing and was apprehended by police shortly thereafter.

The appellant, aged 34 at the time of sentencing, had a substantial criminal record including 33 convictions for 58 offences, notably theft, robbery, handling stolen goods, and two prior convictions for burglary of a dwelling. This offence was the appellant's third burglary of a dwelling. On 29th October 2012, the appellant pleaded guilty to the burglary offence. On 2nd November 2012, the appellant was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment at Snaresbrook Crown Court. The appellant was granted leave to appeal by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment was appropriate for the appellant's burglary offence.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the extent of credit given for the appellant’s guilty plea, specifically awarding 20% credit instead of the usual one-third reduction.
3. Whether the sentencing judge’s approach to applying the mandatory minimum sentence under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was correct.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point of four-and-a-half years was excessive, as the offence fell within category 2 or possibly category 3 burglary under the Definitive Guidelines, not category 1 which would justify such a high starting point.
• The judge improperly engaged in double-counting by increasing the sentence based on the appellant’s previous convictions, which were already accounted for by the statutory minimum sentence triggered by having three burglary convictions.
• The appellant should have received a one-third reduction for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity, but the judge only allowed 20% credit, which was argued to be insufficient.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing approach in light of statutory requirements and sentencing guidelines. It emphasized that the mandatory minimum sentence under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is not the starting point but a minimum threshold that the final sentence must meet or exceed.

The court identified the offence as a category 2 burglary under the Sentencing Guidelines, with a typical starting point of one year’s custody and a range extending up to two years. The sentencing judge’s starting point of four-and-a-half years was deemed too high.

The court recognized two aggravating factors warranting an increase above the category 2 range: the offence was committed while the appellant was on licence, and the appellant’s extensive previous convictions, including two prior burglaries. The court rejected the argument of double-counting, clarifying that previous convictions are properly treated as aggravating factors to increase sentence severity.

The court concluded that a starting point of three years’ imprisonment was appropriate. It then applied credit for the guilty plea, ensuring the sentence remained above 80% of the statutory minimum, resulting in a substituted sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was allowed. The court QUASHED the original sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment and substituted it with a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.

This decision clarifies that the statutory minimum sentence under section 111 is a floor rather than a starting point for sentencing and affirms the proper treatment of aggravating factors, including previous convictions and offending while on licence, without constituting double-counting. No new precedent was set beyond the application of established principles.