Mitchell, R. v

For sustained offences of obtaining money by deception from elderly and vulnerable householders, the duration of the offending, the sums obtained, the financial harm and the exploitation of vulnerability are serious aggravating features. A sentencing court must nevertheless assess the overall term against the general pattern of sentences in materially comparable cases. A severe sentence may be excessive even where the offending was sustained, mean and caused substantial loss.

The appellant was convicted at Lewes Crown Court of eight offences of obtaining property or money transfer by deception. He asked for five further similar offences, concerning another elderly victim, to be taken into consideration. He had dishonestly obtained nearly £94,000 over more than three years by falsely representing that roofing work was needed and fairly priced.

The Crown Court imposed seven years’ imprisonment concurrently on each count. The appellant appealed against sentence, relying on comparable sentencing decisions and personal mitigation. The issue was whether, notwithstanding the grave and sustained exploitation of elderly victims, the concurrent seven-year term was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The concurrent sentences of seven years’ imprisonment were quashed and concurrent sentences of six years were substituted.

2. The court endorsed the sentencing judge’s assessment of the offending. The appellant had pursued a sustained course of dishonesty against elderly and vulnerable victims, obtained very substantial sums, caused one victim severe financial hardship and involved his daughter in the criminal conduct. These were serious aggravating features and justified a substantial immediate custodial sentence.

3. The appellate question was nevertheless whether the total term was excessive when measured against the general pattern of sentencing in comparable cases. The court considered R v Campbell [1995] 16 Cr.App.R (S) 20, together with R v Flynn [1999] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 413 and R v Bennett [1992] 13 Cr.App.R (S) 586. Those authorities showed that even serious offences of this character, involving substantial sums and contested trials, generally attracted sentences in the region of four years.

4. Having regard to the appellant’s especially sustained and serious conduct, a sentence above that general level was warranted. However, seven years was too long. A total term of six years met the justice of the case.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of substituting concurrent six-year sentences for concurrent seven-year sentences: [2006] EWCA Crim 244.

• Crown Court at Lewes: On 23 August 2005, convicted the appellant of eight deception offences and imposed concurrent sentences of seven years’ imprisonment.