Parekh, R. v

A sentencing guideline for theft may assume that offending is motivated by greed or a desire to live beyond the offender’s means. Where that assumption does not apply, the sentencing judge must give effect to the different motivation when selecting the starting point.

That factor does not itself make an offence exceptional or require a sentence outside the guideline range. In a prolonged theft involving a substantial sum and a serious breach of trust, powerful personal mitigation, repayment and remorse may properly reduce the sentence without making an immediate custodial sentence manifestly excessive.

The appellant, a sub-postmaster, pleaded guilty at Harrow Crown Court to theft of £74,880.75 from the Post Office. Over about ten months he concealed the shortfall by falsifying accounting figures. The money was used to keep the failing business operating rather than for his personal benefit.

He had repaid the loss by raising a mortgage on the family home. He relied on his good character, remorse, ill health, community standing and the absence of greed. The Recorder imposed 18 months’ imprisonment after treating two years as the appropriate sentence and allowing 25 per cent credit for the delayed guilty plea.

With leave of the single judge, he appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that his circumstances were exceptional enough to justify a sentence outside the theft guideline.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder’s approach and the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment were correct. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court accepted that the appellant had not acted from greed. His motivation was pride and an unwillingness to admit that his business had failed. Paragraph 8 of the theft guideline therefore had relevance, because its starting points assume greed or a desire to live beyond one’s means.

3. The Recorder had in substance allowed for that feature. Although the guideline identified three years’ custody as the starting point for theft exceeding £20,000 in a high-trust context, the Recorder’s provisional sentence of two years showed that he had adopted a lower starting point before applying credit for the guilty plea.

4. The mitigation was very considerable. It included repayment in full, previous good character, remorse, ill health and the absence of personal enrichment. It did not, however, make either the offender or the offence exceptional. The theft was serious, involved a substantial sum, continued for about ten months, and was committed in breach of a high degree of trust.

5. The Recorder’s careful and humane exercise of sentencing discretion properly balanced those matters. There was no basis for appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2011] EWCA Crim 1278.
• Harrow Crown Court: on 10 January 2011, sentenced the appellant to 18 months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to theft.