Factual and Procedural Background
On 12 January 2026, the Appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Swansea to 18 offences across two indictments, together with driving without insurance. The offences included theft of a motor vehicle, driving while disqualified, attempted burglary, domestic burglary and three batteries. [1]
On 20 January 2026, the Appellant received concurrent and consecutive custodial sentences totalling five years and three months. On 21 January 2026, he was disqualified from driving for three years and six weeks. [2][3]
The Appellant appealed against sentence, with permission, on the ground that the total sentence was manifestly excessive. [4] The offending involved entering or attempting to enter multiple residential properties, stealing vehicle keys and a car, and spitting at three restaurant staff members during an argument. [5][6][7]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the total custodial sentence of five years and three months was manifestly excessive, including whether the sentencing court properly applied the burglary sentencing framework and the totality principle. [4][8][9]
- What sentence was appropriate for the combined burglary, attempted burglary, theft and driving offences after credit for the guilty pleas. [10][11][12]
- Whether the driving disqualification period had been correctly imposed and should be adjusted following the successful sentence appeal. [13][14]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The sentence for the burglary-related offending implied a trial sentence of seven years and six months, which was substantially above the mandatory minimum, the applicable Category 1B starting point and the top of the guideline range for a single offence. [8]
- The sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient regard had been given to totality, the limited entry into several properties, the fact that only vehicle keys and a car were taken, and the single course of conduct. [9]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Needham |
Guidance on pronouncing a driving disqualification by identifying the discretionary period, the statutory extension period and the applicable uplift. |
The sentencing judge had not followed this guidance. The Court therefore quashed and substituted the disqualification period. [13][14] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered it regrettable that the sentencing judge had not referred to the relevant Burglary Guidelines or stated the categorisation of the burglary offences. It also considered it unusual that the burglary involving the theft of the vehicle keys had received a concurrent sentence, while two less serious burglaries had received consecutive sentences. [10]
Because of those deficiencies, the Court undertook its own assessment of the appropriate sentence. It treated the burglary involving the theft of the keys and vehicle as the lead offence and assessed it as a Category 1B burglary, with a starting point of two years and a range of one to four years. [11]
The Appellant's extensive history of acquisitive offending, including previous dwelling burglaries, and the fact that he committed the offences while on licence justified a sentence at the top of the range for the lead burglary: four years' imprisonment. [11]
The additional burglaries, ten attempted burglaries, theft of the vehicle and driving while disqualified were serious aggravating factors requiring a substantial increase. However, the Court concluded that they did not justify a seven-year-and-six-month trial sentence. After considering aggravating and mitigating factors and applying full credit for the guilty pleas, the appropriate sentence for the burglary-related offending was four years, with three consecutive months for the battery offences. [12]
The Court also concluded that the disqualification period had to be reconsidered because the sentence appeal succeeded and because the original sentencing process had not complied with the guidance in Needham. [13][14]
Holding and Implications
Appeal against sentence allowed in part. The sentences on the three domestic burglary counts were quashed. The sentences on two counts were replaced with concurrent terms of 18 months, and the lead burglary received four years consecutive to those terms and the other non-battery counts. The total custodial sentence was reduced to four years and three months. [15]
The driving disqualification was quashed and replaced with a period of two years, seven months and two weeks, comprising a six-month discretionary period, a two-week statutory extension and the specified uplift. [14] The direct effect was to reduce the Appellant's imprisonment and disqualification periods; the opinion does not state any broader implication or establish a new precedent.