Bantick, R. v

For sustained employee theft involving a serious breach of trust and substantial loss, immediate custody may remain appropriate despite the severe effect on an offender’s young children. The sentencing court must take family circumstances into account, but they do not displace the punishment and deterrence required by deliberate offending for gain. On sentence appeal, intervention is not justified unless the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Ipswich Crown Court to five offences of theft. Eight further thefts were taken into consideration. Over about two years, while responsible for the accounts of two small family businesses, she used cheques and electronic transfers to take more than £45,000 from her employers.

She received 12 months’ imprisonment on three counts, with no separate penalty on the remaining counts. She appealed on the basis that the sentence should have been suspended because she was the mother of two young children. She also tendered written statements concerning the family’s circumstances under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court granted leave to appeal but held that the 12-month immediate custodial sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. The offending was a very serious and prolonged breach of trust. The appellant had been entrusted with her employers’ accounts, access to bank accounts and blank cheques. She deliberately used several methods to steal more than £45,000 from a small family business which was already in financial difficulty.
3. The offences were committed for gain rather than need. The sentencing judge had given credit for the guilty pleas and had considered all relevant personal circumstances. The scale, persistence and consequences of the dishonesty justified immediate imprisonment.
4. The court considered the written evidence about the severe distress caused to the appellant’s family and children. Such consequences inevitably arise from sentences imposed for offences of this kind. Here, however, the children were being cared for in a secure and loving environment by their father and grandmother, with appropriate support from the school.
5. The welfare of the children therefore did not make suspension of the sentence necessary or show that the sentencing judge had erred. The sentence was entirely appropriate in all the circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Ipswich: The appellant pleaded guilty to five theft offences and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on three counts; eight further offences were taken into consideration.