Buisson, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 11 September 2025, at the Crown Court, the Appellant was sentenced by Judge Broe to six years and one month's imprisonment following a guilty plea to a single count of conspiracy to burgle. The Appellant appealed with leave.

The burglary occurred on 7 February 2025 at Company A located in The Shopping Centre. A total of 159 luxury watches, valued at approximately £1.4 million, were stolen. Planning began on 13 January 2025. Between that date and the offence a Mercedes, registered to an associate of the Co-defendant, travelled between an address in The County and The Shopping Centre on 16 occasions for reconnaissance; its number plates were switched to clones on each occasion. On one reconnaissance visit a man entered via a staff entrance and made a hole in the roof above Company A. Through that hole the Appellant used a camcorder to film staff, including staff entering a PIN to access a safe that contained keys to two further safes holding the higher-end watches.

On 7 February 2025 CCTV showed the Mercedes arrive. The Appellant, wearing a surgical mask, entered via an unsecured service door, accessed the roof via a ladder, cut holes in the roof, entered the premises, used the filmed PIN to access a safe, obtained keys and opened further safes, removing 159 watches. Tools and the ladder were left at the scene.

Police linked the Appellant to the Mercedes and to a separate vehicle registered to the Appellant via telephone and location evidence. A search of the Appellant's vehicle after arrest recovered the camcorder, five sets of footage and three of the stolen watches; the remainder were not recovered.

At sentence there was no pre-sentence report (the court agreed none was necessary). The sentencing judge had regard to the guideline for non-dwelling burglary (category 1A). The Appellant had an extensive previous record of acquisitive offending, had been released on licence on 24 May 2022 and remained on licence when the index offence was committed. The sentencing judge regarded the notional sentence after trial as seven and a half years, applied 20% credit for the guilty plea, and imposed six years and one month's imprisonment. A timetable for POCA proceedings was set.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge gave appropriate credit for personal mitigation.
2. Whether the sentencing judge wrongly departed from the guideline by adopting a notional sentence after trial equal to 150% of the highest guideline boundary.
3. Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive compared with comparable cases.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge failed to give any or sufficient credit for personal mitigation.
• The judge wrongly departed from the guidelines and adopted a notional sentence after trial equivalent to 150% of the highest boundary of the guideline range.
• The resulting sentence was manifestly excessive when compared with other similar cases.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court (Judge Whipple) analysed the case as follows:

• The offending fell into category 1A of the non-domestic burglary guideline (starting point two years, range one to five years), but the statutory maximum is ten years and sentences above the top of category 1A must be envisaged where justified.
• The factual features—prolonged planning, professional methodology (roof holes, surveillance by camcorder), extremely high value of goods, substantial psychological injury to staff and extensive commercial loss—placed the offending at the top of the category and beyond what is ordinarily expected in category 1A.
• Serious aggravating factors supported significant uplift: an extensive previous record of acquisitive crime (a statutory aggravating factor) and commission of the offence while on licence following a prior substantial sentence. The Appellant's pattern of repeat, serious offending and apparent failure to reform justified further uplift.
• The sentencing judge's consideration of mitigation (family circumstances, health, asserted remorse, and alleged pressure from the now deceased Co-defendant) was recorded; however the judge gave those matters little weight and was entitled to be sceptical given the Appellant's record and the meticulous nature of the offending.
• The notional sentence after trial of seven and a half years was described as tough but not manifestly excessive given the need to uplift beyond the guideline for the substantial aggravating features and limited mitigation.
• The judge's allowance of 20% credit for a guilty plea entered two months before sentence was, if anything, generous; the Appellant had initially pleaded not guilty and changed plea at a late stage.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect: The sentence imposed by Judge Broe—six years and one month's imprisonment—was upheld and remains in force. The timetable for POCA proceedings set by the sentencing judge remains. The court did not establish a new legal precedent; its decision turned on application of the existing guideline and the facts-specific aggravating and mitigating considerations in this case.