Hodgkins, R. v

A sentencing guideline which expressly takes effect from a stated date does not affect sentencing practice before that date. It should not be used to assess an earlier sentence. The seriousness of going equipped may properly be assessed from the cumulative character of the articles possessed. Items of disguise may support an inference that the intended offence involved contact with others and was burglary or robbery. A non-guideline sentencing decision is of limited assistance where its reduction reflects materially different personal mitigation or custodial circumstances. A sentence that is severe is not manifestly excessive if it remains within the range available to the sentencing judge.

The appellant pleaded guilty to going equipped for burglary and theft after being found with bolt croppers, gloves, a face mask and a camouflage hat. He was later convicted of criminal damage to a police cell.

On 7 December 2015, the Crown Court at York imposed 20 months’ imprisonment for going equipped, following a guilty-plea reduction, and one consecutive month for criminal damage. The appellant challenged only the 20-month sentence, with leave of the single judge, on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. He relied on a later definitive guideline and on a purportedly comparable sentencing decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the definitive guideline for going-equipped offences, which came into force after the appellant was sentenced, was not relevant. Following Boakye & others [2012] EWCA Crim 838, an expressly prospective guideline cannot affect earlier sentencing practice.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to infer that the appellant’s collection of items was intended for burglary, or a more serious offence such as robbery. Although individual items might have an innocent or less serious use, their cumulative effect pointed to burglary or robbery. The face mask and camouflage hat particularly supported the conclusion that the appellant contemplated disguise and possible contact with another person.

3. Shariff [2012] EWCA Crim 768 did not establish that the sentence was excessive. It was not a guideline authority. Its reduced suspended sentence reflected the offender’s age, good character and 119 days spent on curfew, circumstances which were materially different from those before the court.

4. The present offence was considerably more serious. The appellant had a relevant previous conviction and was on licence when arrested, although he had been out of trouble for several years. The 20-month term was severe but fell within the range available to the judge. The consecutive one-month sentence for criminal damage was not challenged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the 20-month sentence for going equipped was dismissed.
• Crown Court at York: On 7 December 2015, the appellant received 20 months’ imprisonment for going equipped and a consecutive month for criminal damage, making 21 months in total.