Hakimzadeh, R. v

The seriousness of theft and deliberate defacement of rare library material is not measured solely by market or replacement value. It includes the damage caused to items of historical, intellectual and cultural importance and to the nation’s cultural heritage. A reader admitted to a learned library is entrusted with its material. Theft by such a reader may therefore involve a breach of trust, although the trust will not necessarily be of a high degree.

Sentencing should include a significant deterrent element. Exceptionally powerful personal mitigation and full credit for a guilty plea may nevertheless justify a substantial reduction. Where an automatic deportation consequence was not considered below, a lawful sentencing structure may be adjusted to reflect the proper sentence without imposing a single qualifying term.

The appellant, a 61-year-old scholar of good character, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wood Green to 14 counts of theft. He asked for a further 20 thefts to be taken into consideration. The offending concerned rare books, maps and illustrations removed or cut from books held by the British Library and the Bodleian Library. The material was recovered, although cutting pages from the books had caused lasting damage.

On 16 January 2009 he received concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment and an order for prosecution costs. He applied for leave to appeal against sentence. The appeal concerned the seriousness of theft and damage to cultural property, the relevance of breach-of-trust sentencing guidance, the effect of substantial mitigation and plea credit, and the consequences of a sentence that could engage automatic deportation provisions.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted leave and held that the concurrent two-year sentences were excessive in light of the exceptional mitigation and the appellant’s guilty plea.

2. The gravity of theft from learned libraries could not be assessed simply by the open-market or replacement value of the items. The offence involved the removal and defacement of rare material of historical, intellectual and cultural importance. Its gravamen included the diminution of the nation’s cultural heritage. A significant deterrent element was therefore necessary.

3. The appellant’s reader’s ticket and scholarly reputation entitled the libraries to trust him to handle their collections properly. The offending accordingly involved a breach of trust. It was not, however, a breach of a high degree of trust comparable to that of an employee, custodian or person with specially privileged access. Guidance concerning theft in breach of trust was a relevant comparator.

4. Having regard to the value and cultural significance of the material, a two-year custodial starting point was appropriate. The court gave substantial credit for the appellant’s exceptional personal mitigation and full credit for his plea. The proper overall sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment.

5. The court also considered the potential effect of section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Deportation had not been considered by the sentencing judge. Given the age of the offences, the appellant’s lengthy residence and that omission, the court structured the substitute sentences so that there was no single 12-month term. It imposed concurrent nine-month terms on the British Library counts and concurrent three-month terms on the specified Bodleian Library counts, consecutive to the nine-month terms, producing a total of 12 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2009] EWCA Crim 959, leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The appeal was allowed and the concurrent two-year sentences were set aside and replaced by sentences totalling 12 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: Following guilty pleas to 14 counts of theft, the appellant was sentenced on 16 January 2009 to two years’ imprisonment on each count, concurrently. No lower-court citation was given.