Murray, R v

Sentencing benchmarks for theft from an employer do not fully govern organised theft of mail by a postal employee. Theft of mail harms not only the employer but also members of the public who rely on letters and parcels being delivered. That additional public impact increases the gravity of the offending.

Even in such a serious case, the sentence must reflect all relevant mitigation, including a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, previous good character and the absence of prior convictions. A sentence that fails to give proper effect to those matters may be manifestly excessive.

The appellant, a night supervisor at a Parcel Force depot, pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to conspiracy to steal parcels and their contents belonging to Royal Mail Group Ltd. He and a co-defendant circumvented the parcel-scanning system and removed parcels thought to contain valuable electrical goods. Goods were sold through the co-defendant’s eBay account.

The appellant was of previous good character. He made qualified admissions and said that he had received about £2,000 from the proceeds. On 9 May 2008, the Crown Court imposed three years and six months’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence with the leave of the single judge. The issue was whether that sentence properly reflected both the special gravity of theft of mail and the available mitigation.

Disposition

1. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence. A term of three years and six months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. It substituted two years and nine months’ immediate imprisonment.

2. The sentencing figures for theft from an employer in R v Trevor Clark [1998] 2 Cr App R(S) 95 were relevant but did not exhaust the considerations in this case. The court distinguished ordinary employer theft because the theft concerned Royal Mail parcels.

3. Following the approach described in R v David Reid (1992) 13 Cr App R(S) 645, theft of mail has a wider public effect. It may cause alarm, disappointment and distress to people who expect registered letters and parcels to be delivered. That effect made the offending more serious than theft which harms only an employer.

4. The court nevertheless had to give proper weight to mitigation. The appellant had pleaded guilty at the section 51 hearing, which was the earliest opportunity. He was 41, of previous good character, had never been imprisoned or convicted, and had sought employment soon after his dishonesty was discovered. Taking those matters with the gravity of the offending, the proper immediate custodial term was two years and nine months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted two years and nine months’ immediate imprisonment: [2008] EWCA Crim 2771.

• Sheffield Crown Court: The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal Royal Mail parcels and was sentenced on 9 May 2008 to three years and six months’ imprisonment.