Zouaghi, R v

A substantial custodial sentence for repeated, targeted theft may be proper where the offender is a persistent professional thief with a significant record of dishonesty. The absence of threats or force does not prevent such offending from attracting a deterrent and protective sentence. On the facts, concurrent sentences of three and a half years for three thefts were not manifestly excessive, and the offender had received full credit for guilty pleas.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Isleworth Crown Court to three unconnected thefts committed in Kensington. He stole unattended bags or luggage from hotel and restaurant customers. The stolen property was worth more than £3,000 in total.

He had numerous previous convictions for theft-related offending and had returned to the United Kingdom illegally after deportation. The Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of three and a half years’ imprisonment, less time on remand.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application to appeal against sentence. He contended that the sentencing judge had not allowed full credit for his guilty pleas and that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly because no threats or force had been used.

1. The court refused leave to appeal against sentence. The concurrent sentences of three and a half years’ imprisonment were entirely proper in all the circumstances.

2. The offences were three separate and targeted thefts of property belonging to customers in hotels and a restaurant. Their combined value exceeded £3,000. The applicant’s extensive record for theft and attempted theft showed persistent and professional offending.

3. The absence of threats or force did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the repeated targeting of victims carrying valuable items, and the applicant’s recidivism, as serious aggravating features.

4. The court accepted the single judge’s assessment that full credit had been allowed for the guilty pleas. R v De Weever [2010] 1 Cr App R(S) 3 did not assist the applicant.

5. Protection of society justified removing this persistent professional thief from offending for a substantial period. The renewed application therefore failed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused; the concurrent sentences were upheld as entirely proper.

• Crown Court at Isleworth: on 12 April 2011, following guilty pleas to three thefts, imposed concurrent sentences of three and a half years’ imprisonment, less 62 days on remand.