Hannifin, R. v

A sentence for conspiracy to commit dwelling burglary cannot exceed the statutory maximum for dwelling burglary. A consecutive sentence for a separate robbery may be imposed, but the court must give full effect to the principle of totality.

Even where a planned campaign deliberately targets vulnerable elderly victims and contains grave aggravating features, the aggregate sentence must remain proportionate. In assessing whether it is manifestly excessive, the court may consider comparable sentencing decisions as illustrations, while determining the appropriate sentence from the particular offending, mitigation and credit for a guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty at St Albans Crown Court to conspiracy to commit burglary and robbery. The conspiracy comprised 19 distraction burglaries or attempts over about three months, predominantly targeting elderly residents, many in sheltered accommodation. The offenders used false claims to be police officers, water-board officials or similar persons to obtain entry.

He received 12 years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy and a consecutive sentence of three years and two months for robbery, producing a total of 15 years and two months. He appealed with leave of the single judge, contending that the conspiracy starting point exceeded the lawful maximum and that the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The judge’s 15-year starting point for conspiracy to commit burglary exceeded the lawful maximum. Under Theft Act 1968, section 9(3), the maximum sentence for dwelling burglary was 14 years. By section 3(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, that was also the maximum for the conspiracy count.

2. A consecutive sentence for the robbery was legally permissible. It concerned separate offending on a separate occasion. Its imposition nevertheless depended on full observance of totality.

3. The offending was exceptionally serious. It was planned, sophisticated and deliberately directed at frail and isolated elderly victims in their homes. The court nevertheless held that a total sentence exceeding 15 years, after a guilty plea, was manifestly excessive in light of the appellant’s age, limited previous offending and absence of previous imprisonment.

4. The comparable authorities were illustrative only. For the conspiracy, a starting point of about 12 years before guilty-plea credit was appropriate. A sentence of nine years and six months was substituted. Applying totality, the robbery sentence was reduced to two years, consecutively.

5. The resulting total custodial sentence was 11 years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2016] EWCA Crim 1541, allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted an aggregate sentence of 11 years and six months’ imprisonment.
• St Albans Crown Court: On 13 October 2015, sentenced the appellant after guilty pleas to 15 years and two months’ imprisonment in total for conspiracy to commit burglary and robbery.