Collier, R v

Domestic burglary is an offence against the person as well as against property. Sentencing must reflect the fear, distress and potentially serious consequences suffered by occupants, including consequences not intended by the offender. A sentencing court must assess aggravating and mitigating features as a whole. It need not apply rigid categories from a non-definitive guideline where the facts are exceptional.

A long determinate sentence may be justified where repeated night-time burglaries of occupied homes involve targeted victims, serious sexual intrusion, and a high assessed risk of further serious offending. A very severe sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because it is severe.

The appellant pleaded guilty at St Albans Crown Court to three domestic burglaries and received concurrent sentences of seven years’ imprisonment. Two burglaries occurred on consecutive nights at the home of two young women. The offences involved intrusion into personal possessions and sexualised conduct. A third burglary involved entry into an occupied home, theft, and a knife later found in the absent daughter’s bedroom.

The appellant had numerous previous convictions, including burglaries. Psychological and psychiatric material assessed him as presenting a high risk of further offending and serious harm. The sentencing judge treated public protection as paramount, but could impose only a determinate sentence. The appellant appealed on the ground that seven years was manifestly excessive, relying on guideline comparisons, mitigation, and the absence of a threatened or used weapon.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent sentences of seven years’ imprisonment, though very severe, were not manifestly excessive.
2. The court applied the guidance in R v Saw & Ors [2009] EWCA Crim 1. Domestic burglary must be treated as a serious offence against the person as well as property. The sentencing assessment must reflect the fear, distress and wider adverse consequences for householders, including unintended consequences. The previous distinction between high-level and medium-level aggravating features could be artificial.
3. McInerney & Keating was not a Definitive Guideline for the purposes of sections 170 and 172 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Guideline authorities required regard, but the unusual facts did not fit them neatly and were of limited assistance.
4. The burglaries were committed at night when occupants were present or might reasonably have been expected to be present. Two were directed at the same occupants on consecutive nights. Their repetition, the sexualised and humiliating conduct, the search of intimate possessions, and the knife found in a child’s bedroom were grave aggravating features. The appellant’s prior burglaries and the professional assessments of a high future risk reinforced the need for public protection.
5. The guilty pleas and other mitigation were properly taken into account, but did not reduce the sentence below the level warranted by the seriousness and risk of the offending. The court formally refused the appeal against sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal: [2009] EWCA Crim 160.
• St Albans Crown Court—on 19 May 2008, following guilty pleas to three burglaries, imposed concurrent sentences of seven years’ imprisonment.