Douglas, R. v

A deceptive theft deliberately targeting elderly and vulnerable householders need not be treated as simple theft for sentencing purposes. Where the conduct resembles distraction burglary, or involves deception used to gain access to and exploit a vulnerable victim, a substantially higher sentence may be justified. The appellate question remains whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.

An anti-social behaviour order must state clear and workable prohibitions. An order framed in vague terms, imposing impracticable obligations and expressed to continue indefinitely, is liable to be quashed.

The appellant was convicted of theft after entering the home of an elderly couple while posing as an antiques dealer. Two watches were missing after his visit. He received three and a half years’ imprisonment and an indefinite anti-social behaviour order in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames.

He appealed his sentence with the single judge’s leave, contending that it was manifestly excessive for theft. Although the terms of the anti-social behaviour order were not initially appealed, the court granted leave to challenge them. The issues were whether the custodial sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the order was sufficiently clear and workable.

1. The appeal against the custodial sentence was dismissed. The sentence was high, but it was not manifestly excessive.

2. The offence was an especially unpleasant theft. The appellant had targeted elderly victims, used a false pretence to enter their home, and exploited their vulnerability. The court rejected the submission that the loss should be assessed at £100 merely because the appellant asserted that he had sold the watches for that sum. His account was unsupported, and the watches had not been recovered.

3. The court held that the simple-theft guideline for a vulnerable victim was not the appropriate comparator. The conduct was more akin to distraction burglary, for which markedly longer sentences may be imposed. Alternatively, it was theft from a vulnerable victim involving a deception: the appellant’s false representation that he was a genuine antiques dealer. Although his comparable previous conviction was 25 years old, the sentence remained within the proper range.

4. Leave was granted to appeal the anti-social behaviour order, and that aspect of the appeal succeeded. Its prohibition on entering “privately owned” premises was uncertain in scope. It did not make clear how it applied to rented property, company-owned property, shops, or ordinary daily transactions. Its requirements concerning written permissions and retained receipts were consequently unworkable.

5. The order was also said to be indefinite, a duration the court regarded as far too long. It was vague and unworkable and was therefore quashed in its entirety.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against the three-and-a-half-year sentence was dismissed. Leave was granted to challenge the anti-social behaviour order, which was quashed in its entirety.

• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames — Following a jury conviction for theft, the appellant was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment and made subject to an indefinite anti-social behaviour order.