Attorney General's Reference No. 54 OF 2005

An offender who commits a planned and sophisticated offence in furtherance of sincerely held moral beliefs is not thereby entitled to leniency. The moral motive does not diminish the illegality of the conduct. Custody will ordinarily be appropriate where the offence causes economic harm, involves recruitment of others, and follows relevant prior offending.

Exceptional personal mitigation may justify a different disposal in a suitable case. It did not do so where repeat offending and a contemporaneous contempt of court undermined the offender’s asserted reform. On an Attorney General’s reference, the court must also reduce the substituted sentence to reflect double jeopardy.

The offender was convicted of conspiracy to burgle after entering laboratory premises with others, removing records and taking 700 mice and their cages. The operation was planned, used inside information, and disrupted scientific work. The offender was the principal organiser and had previous convictions connected with animal-rights activity.

The sentencing judge imposed 230 hours’ community punishment. After sentencing, the offender threatened the laboratory’s technical director in court and received six months’ imprisonment for contempt. The Attorney General referred the community punishment order as unduly lenient, contending that only immediate custody was appropriate. The central issue was whether the offender’s role as sole carer for a seriously ill partner justified the non-custodial sentence.

1. The reference was granted. The community punishment order was unduly lenient and was replaced by 12 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the six-month sentence for contempt of court.

2. The conspiracy was carefully planned and sophisticated. It caused economic damage and serious disruption to a legitimate business, and the offender was its prime mover. He recruited less sophisticated participants and acted with inside information. Those features made imprisonment appropriate even before taking account of his record.

3. Conduct motivated by moral beliefs remains unlawful. The court reaffirmed that, although a different disposal may exceptionally be appropriate, sentencing must respond properly to deliberate unlawful action. The offender’s previous animal-rights convictions were particularly significant because he had previously told the court that he would no longer pursue those beliefs by illegal means.

4. The offender’s status as sole carer for his seriously ill partner was powerful mitigation, but it could not justify the exceptional non-custodial disposal. His repeat offending and the contempt of court cast substantial doubt on the genuineness of his earlier assurances of reform.

5. A sentence of 18 months to two years would otherwise have been expected. Applying the necessary allowance for double jeopardy on an Attorney General’s reference, and taking account of the partner’s position, the court imposed 12 months’ imprisonment consecutively to the contempt sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held that the 230-hour community punishment order was unduly lenient and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive to the contempt sentence.