Factual and Procedural Background
On 14 August 2025 in the Court at The City the Appellant pleaded guilty at a plea and trial preparation hearing to two offences of burglary in a dwelling contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968. On 17 October 2025 the Appellant was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment for each offence, to run concurrently. The Appellant appeals against sentence with leave of the Single Judge.
On 12 July 2025 police attended a residence in The City where the occupants returned to find the rear bifold doors smashed, rooms ransacked, blood on the kitchen floor and upstairs, and jewellery and other items stolen. Blood samples matched the Appellant. Later that evening a nearby property in The City was found to have been burgled with the patio door smashed, the front door left open, blood at the scene matching the Appellant, and theft of a designer handbag, £6,000 in cash and jewellery. Video doorbell footage showed the Appellant walking with the stolen handbag and disposing of some items; the Appellant was arrested on 15 July 2025. Victim impact statements described significant psychological effects, heightened anxiety and distress, particularly caused by the presence of blood.
The Appellant, aged 34, has an extensive record of 28 convictions for 76 offences including multiple domestic burglaries and had been released on licence shortly before the instant offences; his licence was revoked and he was recalled following these offences. Minimum sentencing provisions under section 314 of the Sentencing Act 2020 applied because of previous domestic burglary convictions.
A psychiatric report prepared for earlier proceedings by Attorney Hafi dated 4 October 2023 was available and recorded mixed anxiety and depressive disorder linked to childhood trauma and substance misuse. No pre-sentence report was ordered.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence by departing above the sentencing range for a category 1B dwelling burglary.
- How the minimum sentence provisions in section 314 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and the sentencing guideline for domestic burglary should be applied in this case.
- Whether the totality principle was properly applied to reflect two closely connected burglaries and the appropriate adjustment for the Appellant's guilty pleas.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Attorney Lyons accepted correct categorisation of each offence as category 1B and that aggravating factors justified an uplift above the starting point, but contested any justification for increasing the sentence for an individual offence to 6 years or departing beyond the top of the guideline range.
- Attorney Lyons submitted that given the close proximity in time and place of the two offences, the additional uplift for the second offence failed adequately to reflect the principle of totality.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court agreed the offences were properly categorised as category 1B due to extensive soiling, disturbance and significant psychological impact on victims, with medium culpability B. The sentencing judge had identified significant aggravating factors, notably the Appellant's extensive previous convictions and commission of the offences shortly after release on licence, and recognised limited mitigation (difficult childhood, bereavements and the psychiatric material).
The sentencing judge concluded that aggravating factors took each offence outside the category 1B range and determined that the least sentence after trial would have been 8 years for both offences combined, applying a 25% reduction for the guilty pleas to arrive at 6 years' imprisonment on each offence, concurrent.
The Court of Appeal analysed the guideline range and the minimum-sentence legislation, accepted the aggravating factors justified a substantial uplift above the starting point but found no justification for departing outside the relevant guideline range to the extent the sentencing judge did. The court determined that, for a single offence, an appropriate sentence after trial would have been 4 years. To reflect two offences and ensure totality the correct uplift was 2 years (giving 6 years after trial). Applying the 25% reduction for guilty pleas produced concurrent terms of 54 months for each offence. The court therefore concluded the original concurrent sentences of 6 years were manifestly excessive and varied them accordingly.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART; SENTENCE REDUCED
Holding: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and substituted sentences of 54 months' imprisonment for each offence, to run concurrently.
Implications: The direct effect is a reduction of the Appellant's concurrent terms to 54 months each. The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond the court's application of the existing sentencing guideline, minimum sentence provisions and the totality principle in this factual context.