Karimu, R. v

A sentencing court must not increase a fine to reflect the public cost of a defendant having elected trial by jury. If the defendant has caused avoidable prosecution expense, an appropriate contribution to prosecution costs may instead be ordered separately.

Fines must remain proportionate to the offender’s means and the applicable sentencing range. Savings may be relevant to means, but they did not justify a substantial departure from the guideline range in this case.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Blackfriars of theft of goods valued at £111.85 from a shop. He had elected jury trial and was fined £1,600, with a victim surcharge and 28 days’ imprisonment in default.

He appealed against sentence with permission. The prosecution accepted that the offence fell within category C3 of the relevant sentencing guidelines, for which the starting point was a Band A fine. The central issues were whether the fine could reflect the costs of the jury trial and whether the appellant’s savings justified the amount imposed.

1. Disposition. The appeal against sentence was allowed in part. The fine of £1,600 and the associated default term were quashed and replaced by a fine of £90, payable within 28 days, with 14 days’ imprisonment in default. The victim surcharge remained.
2. Fine and trial costs. The court understood the trial judge’s concern that the appellant had taken a jury trial despite apparently clear CCTV evidence, thereby causing public expense. That concern could not lawfully be reflected by increasing the fine. A fine is to be fixed by reference to the offence and the offender’s means, rather than as a charge for use of the criminal justice system.
3. Means. The accepted category C3 guideline range was from a discharge to a Band B fine, with a Band A fine as the starting point. The appellant received state benefits. Although his savings could be taken into account when assessing means, they did not justify a fine of £1,600. A fine of £90 was appropriate.
4. Prosecution costs. Having reduced the fine, the court was entitled to make a distinct order for a contribution towards prosecution costs in respect of avoidable expense. That approach accorded with Northallerton Magistrates' Court Ex p. Dove [2001] Cr. App. R. (S) 136. Given the appellant’s savings of about £2,000 at trial, he was ordered to pay £500 prosecution costs.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Allowed the appeal against sentence in part and substituted a fine of £90, while ordering £500 prosecution costs: [2017] EWCA Crim 1719.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars. Convicted the appellant of theft and imposed a fine of £1,600, a victim surcharge, and 28 days’ imprisonment in default.