Factual and Procedural Background
On 7 February 2024, the appellants, referred to as Appellant 1 and Appellant 2, were convicted by a jury at St Albans Crown Court of conspiracy to steal. The trial judge was Judge Roques. On 12 December 2024, each appellant was sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment and now appeals against that sentence with leave of the single judge.
At sentencing, Appellant 2 was also sentenced for a series of drug offences committed in July 2019, to which there is no appeal. There was uncertainty whether Appellant 2 was on bail or released under investigation when committing the conspiracy offence; the court agreed this made little difference.
Between 27 June and 28 July 2022, four high-value vehicles were stolen from driveways in three locations: The City A, The City B, and The City C. The stolen vehicles included a grey Range Rover Sport valued at £70,000, a Land Rover Discovery worth £65,000, and two Range Rover Velars valued at approximately £46,500 and just under £40,000 respectively. Only one vehicle was recovered. The appellants were linked to the thefts through vehicle tracking, ANPR camera evidence, and cell site and call data, indicating planning, coordination, and communication before, during, and after the offences.
Appellant 2 was arrested in one of the hire cars used in the offences, and drugs were found at his home. Both appellants gave interviews, with Appellant 2 answering no comment and Appellant 1 denying involvement.
Victim impact statements revealed significant emotional and financial harm to the victims, including increased security costs and feelings of insecurity.
Both appellants had extensive criminal records, including prior convictions and breaches of suspended sentences or bail conditions relevant to the timing of the offences.
Pre-sentence reports described Appellant 1 as a carer with some mental health issues and a medium risk of reoffending, and Appellant 2 as motivated by a drug habit, assessed as a high risk of reconviction. Character references highlighted personal and family circumstances and work ethic.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the offence should be categorised as category 1A (high culpability) or category 1B (lower culpability) under the Theft guidelines.
- Whether the starting point and uplift in sentence to five years’ imprisonment was appropriate given the circumstances and aggravating factors.
- Whether the mitigating factors, including mental health and personal circumstances, were properly considered in sentencing.
- Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant 1's Arguments
- The prosecution’s assessment placing the offence within category 1B was correct.
- The offence was not sophisticated within the meaning of the guidelines.
- Appellant 1 had only one prior acquisitive offence, supporting a lower sentence.
- The sentence should have been two years or less and suspended.
- It was wrong in principle not to consider a suspended sentence given the offence categorisation.
Appellant 2's Arguments
- It was incorrect to categorise the offence as category A culpability.
- The uplift from 3 years 6 months to 5 years was excessive and unjustified.
- The offence was not sophisticated; detection and arrest were inevitable.
- The judge failed to note the offence was poorly planned and executed without attempts to disguise actions.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court affirmed the judge’s finding that the offence involved high culpability due to significant planning and sophistication. Despite the appellants’ failure to take all precautions against detection, the thefts were carried out through a coordinated conspiracy involving sourcing vehicles, hiring cars, electronic devices to override vehicle security, and delivery for disposal. The fact that three of the four vehicles were not recovered further demonstrated the sophistication.
The court rejected the submission that the appellants took no steps to disguise their actions, noting the offences occurred at night to reduce detection risk. The court also considered the specific roles of each appellant in the conspiracy.
The starting point of 3 years 6 months under the Theft guidelines was endorsed, with recognition that the appellants were guilty of a conspiracy over a month, not a single theft.
The court found substantial aggravating factors justifying the uplift to five years, including the high total value of stolen goods, the appellants’ antecedents with breaches of suspended sentences or bail conditions, and the significant emotional and financial harm to victims.
The judge’s reduction of the sentence from five years to 51 months to reflect mitigation, including mental health considerations, was upheld. The court noted that although the judge did not mention Appellant 1’s caring responsibilities, this omission did not render the sentence manifestly excessive.
Holding and Implications
The appeals are DISMISSED.
The court affirmed the sentences of 51 months’ imprisonment for each appellant. The decision confirms the appropriateness of categorising the offence as high culpability with significant aggravating factors warranting an uplift in sentence. No new precedent was established; the ruling reinforces the application of existing Theft guidelines and sentencing principles in cases involving coordinated conspiracies to steal high-value goods.