Attorney General's References Nos 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of 2007 (Callaghan& Ors)

Ram-raiding is an exceptionally serious form of commercial burglary. A single offence may justify a starting point of, or approaching, seven years’ imprisonment after trial. In a sustained conspiracy, persistence, aggression, recklessness, planning, high loss and damage, offending on licence or bail, and repeated personal participation may justify substantially longer sentences.

Although a conspirator’s sentence can reflect participation in the conspiracy as a whole, the sentencing court must respect an agreed basis of plea limiting the offender’s admitted overt acts where no Newton hearing was sought. On an Attorney General’s reference, double jeopardy must be allowed for but does not prevent correction of sentences that fall massively short of the proper level.

Five young men pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to conspiracy to steal and conspiracy to burgle arising from a four-month campaign of vehicle thefts and commercial burglaries, many committed by ram raid. The campaign caused substantial damage and loss. Each offender admitted only specified overt acts under an agreed basis of plea.

On 20 March 2007, the sentencing judge imposed sentences between two and a half and three and a half years for the conspiracies, with some consecutive sentences for unrelated offending. The Attorney General referred the sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The central questions were whether the sentences were unduly lenient and whether the offenders should be treated as responsible for the conspiracy in its widest sense despite their limited admissions.

1. The Attorney General’s references were allowed. The sentences for the conspiracies were unduly lenient and were quashed. They fell massively short of the proper level even after allowing for double jeopardy.

2. Ram-raiding involved particularly grave commercial burglary. It commonly required prior vehicle theft, planning, serious property damage, risks to the public, and an attack on commercial security. The court considered R v Percy (1993) 14 Cr App R(S) 10, R v Byrne & Ors (1995) 16 Cr App R (S) 140, and R v Richardson and Brown [1998] 2 Cr App R(S) 87. Those authorities indicated a starting point in the region of, or approaching, seven years after trial for a single ram raid. The absence of the greater sophistication present in some earlier cases was outweighed here by the persistence, aggression and recklessness of the repeated offending.

3. The court accepted that a conspirator in a wide-ranging conspiracy may sustain and support offences committed by others, as explained in R v Toth and Rance [2006] EWCA Crim 2571. It did not, however, sentence these offenders on the footing that each bore responsibility for every offence in the sequence. The agreed bases of plea, the absence of a Newton hearing, and the sentencing judge’s acquiescence required the court to proceed by reference to each offender’s admitted overt participation. That qualification gave little practical benefit because every offender had repeatedly participated in grave offending, and several had offended on licence or bail.

4. Timely guilty pleas and relative youth were the significant mitigation. The court increased Callaghan’s sentence to six years and six months’ imprisonment; Brattley’s to five years’ detention; Boylan’s to five years and six months’ detention, making five years and ten months with the consecutive sentence; Buike’s to five years and six months’ detention, making five years and eight months with the corrected consecutive three-month sentence; and Smith’s to four years’ imprisonment. Brattley was ordered to surrender within 24 hours. The court confirmed that allowance for time spent in custody under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 remained applicable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, held the conspiracy sentences unduly lenient, and increased them: [2007] EWCA Crim 3383.
• Crown Court at Leeds — On 20 March 2007, His Honour Judge Dobkin sentenced the five offenders after guilty pleas to conspiracy to steal and conspiracy to burgle.