Fountain, R v

Sentencing for multiple dwelling-house burglaries must reflect a balanced assessment of all aggravating and mitigating features and the totality of the offending. Offences taken into consideration may substantially aggravate the sentence. Frank admissions and meaningful assistance to the police and victims remain significant mitigation.

Consecutive sentences may be appropriate, but the same aggravating feature should not be compounded across separate counts. Concurrent sentences may better reflect the overall criminality where they avoid double counting. Prompt guilty pleas require proper credit, subject to the statutory minimum for repeat dwelling-house burglary under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cambridge to two daytime dwelling-house burglaries. He asked for 21 further burglaries, attempted burglaries and burglaries with intent to be taken into consideration. He had previous convictions for burglary and a substantial record for dishonesty.

The Crown Court imposed consecutive terms totalling seven years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient weight had been given to his prompt admissions, assistance to the police, mitigation and totality. The issue was the just and proportionate overall sentence for the admitted offending.

1. Appeal allowed. The total sentence of seven years was manifestly excessive. The Court quashed the sentences and substituted concurrent terms of five years and four months’ imprisonment on each count.
2. The statutory repeat-burglary regime in Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 111, applied. There were no circumstances making its application unjust. The statutory minimum did not determine the appropriate sentence in this case because the properly assessed term was substantially higher.
3. The offences were serious. The appellant’s previous convictions, the number and seriousness of the 21 offences taken into consideration, and the impact on victims were substantial aggravating features. A lengthy custodial term was inevitable.
4. The Crown Court judge did not make clear what weight had been given to the appellant’s frank admissions, his assistance in identifying offences that might otherwise not have been proved, and his acceptance of responsibility. Those matters were significant mitigation and required weight in the overall balance.
5. Consecutive sentences were not wrong in principle. However, the structure adopted risked increasing each count for the same aggravating feature of previous convictions. Concurrent terms of equal length were the more convenient way to reflect the overall gravity while respecting totality.
6. The just and proportionate sentence after trial was eight years. The prompt guilty pleas required a one-third reduction, producing a total of five years and four months. The Court again recorded that the 21 additional offences were taken into consideration.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2017] EWCA Crim 967, allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the consecutive sentences and substituted concurrent terms of five years and four months.
• Crown Court at Cambridge — On 4 November 2016, imposed a total sentence of seven years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to two dwelling-house burglaries, with 21 further offences taken into consideration.