Johnson, R v

A custodial sentence was appropriate for theft of postal items by a postal worker. Such offending involves a breach of the employer’s trust and causes alarm, distress and inconvenience to members of the public. Its seriousness was heightened by the risk of identity theft.

However, sentence must reflect the factual basis on which the Crown puts its case. Where the prosecution confines the case to a limited number of stolen items and there is no established financial gain, a sentence that fails to reflect that limitation may be manifestly excessive.

R v Andrew Johnson concerned an appeal against a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment imposed at Croydon Crown Court following a guilty plea to one count of theft.

The appellant was a postman. Three stolen Halifax credit cards and material relating to dummy postal items were found at his home after surveillance and arrest. He had no previous convictions and relied on his guilty plea, good character, personal difficulties and the absence of financial gain.

The Crown put the case on the limited basis of the three credit cards and associated material. The issue was whether 15 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive and was reduced to nine months’ imprisonment.

2. Immediate custody was appropriate. Theft of post by a postal worker is a serious breach of the trust placed in postal workers by their employer and by members of the public. It also causes alarm, distress and inconvenience because senders and intended recipients may not know what has happened to the missing post.

3. The court regarded the offending as particularly serious in the context of increasing identity theft. The stolen credit cards therefore justified a custodial sentence despite the appellant’s guilty plea, previous good character and personal, financial and emotional difficulties.

4. Nevertheless, the Crown had deliberately advanced a limited case. It asked the sentencing judge to deal with the appellant only for the three credit cards and associated material found at his home. The 15-month term did not sufficiently reflect that restricted basis. A term of nine months properly marked the seriousness of the offence while remaining proportionate to the case presented.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in [2006] EWCA Crim 3023 and substituted nine months’ imprisonment.
• Croydon Crown Court: Following a guilty plea to theft, imposed 15 months’ imprisonment on 24 August 2006.