Rose, R. v

For an offence of possessing criminal property based on suspicion, sentencing may be informed by comparison with handling stolen goods. Relevant aggravating features include the offender’s proximity to the primary criminality and the value and commercial importance of the property.

The sentence must nevertheless reflect that the offender was not convicted of handling, and must give proper weight to a previously good character and the consequences of first imprisonment. The court declined to formulate general sentencing guidelines for such offences.

The appellant was convicted at Nottingham Crown Court of three counts of possessing criminal property, contrary to Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 329(1)(c). He had permitted stolen commercial equipment and a horse trailer to remain at his farm. The jury found that he suspected the items were proceeds of crime.

In October 2006 he received concurrent sentences amounting to 30 months’ imprisonment. He had no previous convictions, was of positive good character, and was assessed as presenting a very low risk of reoffending. The issue was the appropriate sentence for a person convicted on the basis of suspicion, rather than handling stolen goods.

1. Leave was granted and the appeal was allowed. The total sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. It was reduced to concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment on each count.

2. The offences crossed the custody threshold. Those who stole the brewer’s dray knew that the appellant’s farm could be used to store it. The property was valuable, and two items had substantial commercial use for their owners.

3. The court declined to give general sentencing guidelines for offences under section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It observed that guidance might be useful if the provisions were frequently deployed.

4. By comparison with handling stolen goods, the court was assisted by R v Bernard Webbe [2002] 1 Cr.App.R(S) 22. The relevant aggravating features were the offender’s closeness to the primary offence and the value of the goods to their loser, including their value in trade.

5. The comparison did not justify treating the appellant as a handler. The sentence had to reflect both the limited nature of his conviction, namely suspicion rather than handling, and his previous good character. A first custodial sentence at the age of 48 would have serious consequences for him and his family. Concurrent 12-month terms adequately reflected the gravity of the offending and its deterrent purpose.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal against sentence was allowed. The total sentence was reduced from 30 months to concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment.
• Nottingham Crown Court: In October 2006, following convictions on three counts of possessing criminal property, the appellant was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.