Harnett, R v

For a repeat domestic burglar subject to the three-year minimum sentence under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 111, the minimum is not a starting point from which a further increase should routinely be made. A sentence above that minimum requires case-specific aggravation.

In a typical case, a guilty plea and the absence of aggravating features beyond the qualifying record justify the statutory minimum. The ordinary distress and insecurity caused by a domestic burglary do not warrant an additional term without evidence of a greater impact on the victim.

R v Harnett was an appeal against a four-year sentence imposed at Snaresbrook Crown Court after the appellant pleaded guilty to domestic burglary. His record included repeated residential burglaries, so the sentencing judge applied the three-year minimum under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

The judge rejected reports recommending a community order with drug rehabilitation and imposed a further year above the minimum. On appeal, the appellant no longer pursued a community sentence. He submitted that no feature of the burglary justified a sentence exceeding three years, particularly after his guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court quashed the four-year sentence and substituted three years’ imprisonment.

2. Section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 imposed a three-year minimum sentence on these facts. It was not a starting point for a routine increase. The appellant did not contend that a sentence below the minimum was needed to avoid injustice.

3. The appellant’s qualifying record was the feature which engaged section 111. The court accepted that a community order with a drug rehabilitation requirement was unsuitable, given his failed earlier order, persistent offending and the fact that he committed this burglary shortly after release on licence.

4. The circumstances did not, however, justify a term above the statutory minimum. The aggravating features identified in R v Saw, [2009] EWCA Crim 1, were absent. The untidy search of the flat did not amount to vandalism, and there was no force, unusual trauma, deliberate targeting of a vulnerable victim, or comparable aggravation.

5. A domestic burglary naturally causes distress and insecurity. But the complainant’s detailed statement supplied no evidence of an impact beyond those ordinary consequences. The guilty plea was an important mitigating feature. This was therefore a typical qualifying repeat-burglary case for which the three-year minimum sentence was designed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal to the limited extent of quashing the four-year sentence and substituting three years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 3 October 2008, HHJ Pardoe QC sentenced the appellant to four years’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to burglary.