Thomason, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was sentenced on 15 March 2024 by Mr Recorder Jones KC at the Crown Court at Preston to a total of eight years and four months' imprisonment for five offences to which he pleaded guilty on 1 February 2024. The offences included three counts of burglary, one count of common assault, and one count of threatening with an offensive weapon in a private place under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.

The offences occurred over two days in August 2023 at different residential addresses. The burglaries involved theft of various valuable items including shoes, jewellery, laptops, and cash. The common assault involved the Appellant forcibly entering a home and pushing aside a carer. The threatening offence involved the Appellant producing a kitchen knife and threatening a resident with it, followed by a verbal threat to return with weapons.

The Appellant initially pleaded guilty to the burglary counts but not to the other charges. He refused to attend certain pre-trial hearings and sought to plead guilty late, only 13 days before the trial date. The Appellant had an extensive criminal history dating back to childhood, including numerous burglary and violent offences. Victim personal statements described significant fear and anxiety caused by the offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in relation to the application of the totality principle.
2. Whether the Appellant was given appropriate credit for his guilty pleas.
3. Whether the Appellant was given sufficient credit for mitigation, including the circumstances of the offences and his personal circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that he was entitled to greater credit for his guilty pleas.
• He argued that the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the circumstances of the offences and his personal background.
• He submitted that the total sentence was excessive, particularly regarding the principle of totality.

Crown's Arguments

• The Crown submitted that the burglaries each fell within category 1A of the sentencing guideline, with a starting point of three years' imprisonment and a range of two to six years.
• It was submitted that the statutory minimum sentence of three years applied to the burglary offences under section 314 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
• The common assault was categorized as 3B with a starting point of a financial penalty.
• For the threatening offence, the Crown invited reference to a similar offence guideline, submitting it fell within category 1A with a starting point of two years' imprisonment.
• The Crown did not dispute the categorisation of the offences and supported the sentencing structure including consecutive and concurrent sentences.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the sentencing guidelines relevant to each offence, noting that the high culpability factors for category 1A burglaries were absent. Instead, each burglary offence fell into category 1B, with a starting point of two years' imprisonment and a range from one to four years, due to the presence of persons on premises or substantial loss.

The court observed that the sentencing judge had treated the victim's presence in one burglary as an aggravating factor but cautioned against double-counting this factor. The mitigating factors, including the Appellant’s mental health and intention to reform, were given little weight due to lack of medical evidence and his extensive criminal history.

The Appellant's previous convictions were a significant aggravating factor but the court noted that most offences were committed when the Appellant was a child and that the longest previous custodial sentence was 876 days. The statutory minimum sentence for one burglary count already incorporated an uplift for previous convictions.

The court found the original sentence for one burglary count excessive, as it exceeded the appropriate starting point and did not sufficiently reflect the totality principle, given the consecutive nature of sentences and overlapping aggravating factors.

The court upheld the sentence for the threatening offence as appropriate due to its distinct nature and escalation in offending. It agreed with the concurrent sentence on one burglary count to maintain totality.

Regarding reductions for guilty pleas, the court found a 20% reduction appropriate for the threatening offence due to the timing of the plea. However, the sentencing judge erred in rounding up reductions for other counts, resulting in sentences shorter than permitted by statute. The court corrected these errors by substituting sentences consistent with statutory minimums and appropriate guilty plea reductions.

Holding and Implications

The court QUASHED the sentences imposed on counts 1, 2, and 5 and substituted new sentences of two years and 146 days' imprisonment for each, with count 2 imposed consecutively and count 5 concurrently. The sentences on counts 3 and 4 remain unchanged. The aggregate sentence is now six years and 292 days.

This decision directly affects the Appellant by reducing the total custodial sentence. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied existing sentencing principles and statutory provisions to ensure lawful and proportionate sentencing.