Gharib, R. v

Handling stolen goods worth less than £10,000 may cross the custody threshold where the handling has hallmarks of sophistication. A dealer who is trusted by thieves to buy recently stolen goods for onward sale as part of a business may properly be treated as a sophisticated handler. The close temporal connection between theft and handling may support that conclusion, since thieves require a rapid outlet for stolen goods.

Where commercial handling crosses the custody threshold, deterrence is an important sentencing consideration. A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because the value falls below the higher-value bracket in a guideline authority; the sophistication, commercial setting and mitigation must be assessed together.

The appellant, a 41-year-old man of previous good character, was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of eleven counts of handling stolen goods. He operated an electrical-goods business. Police found seven recently acquired iPhones and four laptops which had been obtained through unauthorised credit-card use. Their total value was just over £8,000.

On 16 February 2011, the Crown Court imposed twelve months’ immediate imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of his good character and R v Webbe [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 22. The central issues were whether the case crossed the custody threshold and whether twelve months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that immediate custody was not wrong in principle and that a total sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court accepted that handling stolen goods valued below £10,000 will not necessarily cross the custody threshold for a person of good character. It may do so, however, where the handling bears hallmarks of sophistication. Applying the guidance in R v Webbe [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 22, the appellant’s conduct had that quality. Over four weeks he had become a fence: at least two thieves trusted him to buy recently stolen goods so that he could sell them through his business.

3. The temporal proximity between theft and handling reinforced that conclusion. The court rejected the suggestion that geographical proximity was more important. For thieves, the speed with which goods can be moved on is of greater significance than the location of the outlet.

4. Commercial handling of stolen goods which crosses the custody threshold calls for deterrence. Those who buy and dispose of stolen goods in the course of business must expect salutary punishment, so as to reduce their willingness to provide thieves with an outlet.

5. The appellant’s good character was substantial mitigation, but he had neither expressed remorse nor acknowledged guilt. The guideline’s higher-value bracket did not make the twelve-month sentence excessive when the sophistication and need for deterrence were taken into account.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2011] EWCA Crim 1257.

• Crown Court at Southwark: on 16 February 2011, sentenced the appellant to twelve months’ imprisonment after convictions for eleven counts of handling stolen goods.