Smith, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

An appellant pleaded guilty at a Magistrates' Court to four offences of non-domestic burglary committed in April and May 2024 at various retail premises in London. The appellant forced entry causing minor damage and stole cash and electronic devices on multiple occasions. The appellant has a long history of convictions related to theft and burglary, including ten burglary convictions in the five years preceding the current offences. The Magistrates' Court committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentencing. The Crown Court judge imposed concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment for each offence. The sentencing hearing was adjourned multiple times due to delays in reports, the appellant's refusal to attend court, and technical issues with a video link. The appellant’s behaviour during the hearings was disruptive, and he claimed illness for non-attendance on one occasion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences passed were consistent with the Sentencing Council guideline for offences of non-domestic burglary.
2. Whether the judge was correct to decide not to suspend the sentences of imprisonment passed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant's counsel submitted that the burglaries should be categorised as category 3 for harm under the Sentencing Council guideline, based on limited damage and low-value property taken.
• It was argued that the offences were impulsive and fell into category C for culpability.
• The appellant contended the sentence should have been suspended, with the suggestion that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that failure to attend court was wilful rather than due to genuine illness.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The court disagreed with the appellant's characterisation of the offences as impulsive and of lower culpability, affirming the judge’s classification of the offences as category 2B harm and category B medium culpability.
• The court found the judge’s decision not to suspend the sentence was justified based on the appellant’s disruptive behaviour, refusal to attend court, and history of non-compliance with court orders.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the offences by applying the Sentencing Council guideline for non-domestic burglary, agreeing with the Crown Court judge’s placement of the offences in category 2B for harm and category B for culpability. The court accepted the judge’s pragmatic approach in passing one effective sentence for all four offences concurrently. It agreed that the offences, committed persistently to fund the appellant’s drug addiction, warranted a sentence outside the usual category range due to the appellant’s extensive criminal history. However, the court found the original three-year sentence (prior to credit for guilty pleas) excessive and substituted a two-year sentence before credit, aligning with the top of the category 1B range. Regarding suspension, the court upheld the judge’s decision, finding the appellant’s refusal to engage with court proceedings and history of breaching court orders justified a custodial sentence to protect the public. The court declined to second guess the judge’s inference that the appellant’s failure to attend court was wilful, noting no additional evidence was available.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was partly allowed. The court QUASHED the original four concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment and SUBSTITUTED four concurrent sentences of sixteen months' imprisonment each. The decision confirms the court’s discretion to adjust sentences outside guideline ranges based on offender history and behaviour, but also to reduce sentences where the original term is found excessive. The refusal to suspend the sentence was upheld, emphasizing the importance of offender cooperation in rehabilitation efforts. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling directly affects the appellant’s sentence length and affirms the application of sentencing principles in cases involving persistent offending and drug addiction.