Stanborough, R. v

Sentencing for a professional and organised conspiracy to commit commercial burglary must reflect its scale, high-value targets, use of stolen vehicles, damage and economic harm. Even serious offending near the top of the range should not be sentenced at the maximum level unless its facts justify that level.

Substantial credit should be given for realistic guilty pleas in a complex multi-defendant case where they avoid a lengthy and expensive trial. Sentences must also be calibrated to each offender’s role and participation. Youth or modest personal gain will not necessarily justify a further reduction, whereas exceptionally limited involvement may do so.

Seven young defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit burglary arising from a series of commercial burglaries between 2004 and 2006. The offending involved high-value professional television equipment, other goods, stolen vehicles, substantial property damage and serious economic consequences for the businesses affected.

On 8 February 2007, HHJ Bing imposed sentences ranging from four to seven years’ custody. The defendants appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge. The central issue was whether the seven-year sentence imposed on the principal organiser, which had informed the grading of the other sentences, was excessive.

1. All seven appeals against sentence were allowed. The court held that the sentencing judge had correctly identified the conspiracy as professional, organised and serious. The high values involved, use of stolen vehicles, necessary reconnaissance, property damage and economic harm to the victims all materially aggravated the offending.

2. However, the judge’s starting point of nine to ten years for the principal appellant, Omar Mentesh, was too high. Although the conspiracy was near the top of the sentencing range, it was not at the maximum level. An eight-year starting point properly reflected Mentesh’s organisational role and his involvement in five burglaries.

3. The court gave full and substantial credit for the guilty pleas. In a large and complex case, the pleas avoided a difficult multi-defendant trial and saved considerable public expense and court time. Mentesh’s sentence was therefore reduced from seven years to five years and six months.

4. The remaining sentences, which had been graded by reference to Mentesh’s sentence, were generally reduced by 18 months. Muchemwa-Royer and Kelly received four years and six months; Hutchinson received four years and six months; Stanborough received three years and six months; and Waldron received two years and six months. No further reduction was justified for Hutchinson, Stanborough or Waldron merely because of youth, modest reward, or their more limited participation.

5. Ghelle’s involvement was exceptionally limited and more closely resembled responsibility for an individual burglary than participation in the wider enterprise. His sentence was reduced from four years to two years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed all seven appeals against sentence and substituted reduced custodial terms.
• Crown Court On 8 February 2007, HHJ Bing sentenced the defendants after guilty pleas to conspiracy to commit burglary.