Factual and Procedural Background
On 28 January 2025, in the Crown Court at Maidstone, the Appellant was sentenced by Mr Recorder Gallagher for a total of 31 offences: 29 offences of theft from shops, one theft from a person, and one theft of a bicycle. The Appellant received concurrent sentences of 32 months' imprisonment for each offence. The Appellant, no longer in prison and currently subject to a home detention curfew, appeals against the sentence with leave of the single judge. The Appellant chose not to attend the appeal hearing, having been properly notified at his home address in Kent, and the court proceeded in his absence.
The offences occurred between May and August 2024. They included entering a private garden and stealing a bicycle valued at £370; stealing tools, alcohol, a laptop, and tablet from a garage and work van with a combined value of approximately £2,500; and committing 29 thefts from different shops with a total value exceeding £2,700. The total value of stolen goods across all offences exceeded £5,000.
The Appellant had 47 previous convictions for 91 offences from 1995 to 2024, 69 of which were theft-related. A pre-sentence report noted the Appellant's poor response to previous court orders, a high risk of reoffending, but also recorded expressions of remorse for the recent offences and efforts to address drug addiction while in custody. Victim impact statements described significant distress and business impacts resulting from the offences.
At sentencing, the Recorder considered the facts, antecedents, and victim statements. Although he reviewed the Sentencing Council Guidelines on Theft, he found them of limited assistance given the Appellant's prolific offending history. The Recorder noted previous ineffective orders and concluded there was no immediate prospect of rehabilitation. He departed from the guidelines to impose a total sentence of 48 months, reduced by one third for early guilty pleas to 32 months, with concurrent terms for each offence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Recorder erred in departing from the Sentencing Council Guidelines for the theft offences.
- Whether the total sentence of 48 months' imprisonment (before reduction) was manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Recorder took an excessively high starting point by departing from the category A1 range in the Sentencing Council Guidelines for theft from shops.
- The Recorder failed to properly consider mitigating factors, including the Appellant's efforts to address drug addiction and his expressions of remorse.
- During custody, the Appellant reflected on the consequences of his criminal activity, was striving to become drug-free, and had taken a heroin blocker.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Harvey [2020] EWCA Crim 354 |
Permissibility of aggregating value of multiple shop theft offences and departure from guidelines due to scale, persistence, and value of offences. |
The court relied on Harvey to confirm the Recorder was entitled to depart from the guidelines given the persistent and high-value nature of the Appellant's shop thefts and other offences. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first addressed whether the Recorder was entitled to depart from the Sentencing Council Guidelines. Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires courts to follow relevant guidelines unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. The court found that the Recorder properly concluded that the persistent, large-scale, and high-value thefts warranted departure from the guidelines, consistent with the precedent in R v Harvey.
The Recorder aggregated the offences to impose a total sentence reflecting the overall criminality, then imposed concurrent sentences to respect the principle of totality, thus avoiding guideline breaches.
The court then considered whether the 48-month sentence before reduction was manifestly excessive. Notwithstanding the Recorder’s omission to explicitly reference the Appellant’s remorse and efforts to address addiction, the court found the sentence, though severe, was not manifestly excessive given the persistence, scale, value of the offences, and the Appellant’s extensive previous convictions.
The court distinguished the present case from Harvey on factual grounds but acknowledged that Harvey supports imposing severe sentences in cases involving significant, persistent shop thefts.
Accordingly, the court concluded the sentence was not wrong in principle and dismissed the appeal.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The court upheld the sentence imposed by the Recorder, confirming that departure from the Sentencing Council Guidelines was justified due to the persistent and large-scale nature of the offences. The decision affirms that courts may impose severe sentences for prolific theft offenders with extensive criminal histories and that aggregated sentencing reflecting total offending is appropriate. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles.