Manion, R. v

For theft of railway signalling cable, sentencing may properly reflect the serious and nationally significant disruption, financial loss and safety risks caused by such offending. A judge does not act contrary to sentencing guidance merely by referring to local prevalence where the sentencing emphasis is the proven scale of disruption rather than local conditions alone.

The proper sentence must nevertheless be proportionate to the offending and guilty plea. On the facts of this case, a two-year starting point and a 10 per cent reduction for guilty pleas entered on the day fixed for trial produced concurrent sentences of 22 months’ imprisonment.

The appellants pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to two thefts of substantial quantities of railway signalling cable. The scrap value was modest, but replacement costs and disruption to rail services were considerable. The evidence also described the national increase in cable theft, its operational cost and the associated safety risks.

On 30 September 2010, the Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment on each count. Kershaw’s sentence was consecutive to 26 weeks’ imprisonment already being served. Both appellants appealed their sentences with leave of the Single Judge.

The principal issues were whether the judge had placed impermissible weight on local prevalence and whether the starting point, credit for guilty pleas, and overall sentences were excessive.

1. The appeals were allowed to the extent of reducing the sentences. Concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment on each theft count were replaced by concurrent sentences of 22 months’ imprisonment. Kershaw’s sentence remained consecutive to the 26-week sentence he was already serving.

2. The Crown Court was entitled to regard railway-cable theft as serious. The evidence established substantial disruption to rail services, significant consequential losses, difficulties in replacing stolen cable, and safety risks. It also established that this was a national problem, not merely a local one.

3. The sentencing judge’s reference to frequent offending in South Yorkshire did not breach the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s Guidelines on Overarching Principles. His proper emphasis was on the degree of disruption caused by this form of theft. The evidence supported deterrent sentencing.

4. However, the starting point was too high. For offending of this kind, the appropriate starting point was two years’ imprisonment. The guilty pleas, although entered only when trial was due to begin, warranted a 10 per cent reduction. That produced sentences of 22 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeals in part and substituted concurrent sentences of 22 months’ imprisonment: [2011] EWCA Crim 234.
• Sheffield Crown Court: Following guilty pleas on 9 September 2010, imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment on each of two theft counts on 30 September 2010.