Guessoum, R v

In sentencing for handling stolen goods, the court must assess the whole nature of the offending, not value alone. Systematic activity, the close timing of dealings to burglaries, and the handling of property stolen from homes may justify a substantial custodial sentence even where the total value is comparatively modest.

However, the sentence must remain proportionate after allowing for all aggravating features and an early guilty plea. An appellate court will intervene where the judge’s after-trial starting point makes the resulting sentence manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Blackfriars to seven counts of handling stolen goods. Over about two weeks, he sold laptops and other electrical goods to undercover police officers operating a purported shop for stolen property. Most items had recently been stolen in residential burglaries.

He received concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment, reflecting a three-year after-trial assessment and credit for his early plea. He appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive when assessed against the relevant sentencing authorities and the aggravating features of his offending.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted leave, quashed the concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment, and substituted concurrent sentences of 16 months’ imprisonment.

2. The court held that the offending was serious. It was systematic, continued over a two-week period, and involved goods obtained very shortly after burglaries, almost all of which were residential. Those features justified a severe custodial sentence despite the total value being about £5,000.

3. The sentencing approach in R v Webbe and Others [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 22 showed that value was relevant but not decisive. The comparison with R Charlcroft and Campbell [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 42 did not assist the applicant because that case involved additional mitigation and victimless attempted handling in a police operation. R v Gwyer [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 56 supported the conclusion that the nature of the offending could outweigh relatively low value.

4. Nevertheless, the judge’s assessment of three years after a contested trial was too high. The proper after-trial figure was two years. Giving effect to the early guilty plea required a sentence of 16 months.

5. The court also directed correction of the Crown Court record. A recommendation for deportation had been removed later on the sentencing day under the slip rule, but the record still showed it and had to be corrected and notified to the original recipients.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2008] EWCA Crim 2589, leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The concurrent two-year sentences were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of 16 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars — The applicant pleaded guilty on 17 June 2008 to seven counts of handling stolen goods. On 18 July 2008, he received two years’ imprisonment on each count, concurrently.