Simpson, R v

For the burglary sentencing guideline, deliberate targeting requires more than choosing a dwelling because it is likely to contain valuable and saleable property. It requires an additional feature of the kind indicated by the guideline.

Where several burglaries are committed on the same occasion and concurrent sentences are appropriate, each sentence may be adjusted to reflect the total criminality. Mitigation and credit for an early guilty plea must then be applied. A separate consecutive sentence may mark a connected vehicle-taking offence, but the court must avoid double counting.

The appellant pleaded guilty before magistrates to four dwelling burglaries, taking a motor vehicle without consent and using it without insurance. He was committed to the Crown Court at Sheffield for sentence.

The Crown Court imposed concurrent terms of two years’ detention for the burglaries and four months consecutively for the vehicle-taking, producing 28 months’ detention. It also imposed an 18-month driving disqualification for the insurance offence.

He appealed against sentence. The central issues were whether the burglaries had properly been classified as involving deliberate targeting, whether the terms and consecutive sentence were excessive, whether custody could be suspended, and the proper duration of the driving disqualification.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court quashed the total sentence of 28 months’ detention and substituted concurrent sentences of 16 months’ detention for the burglaries and a consecutive sentence of two months for taking the vehicle, making 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution.

2. The sentencing judge’s finding of deliberate targeting could not stand. Although dwelling burglaries usually involve selecting premises likely to contain valuable, readily saleable property, that ordinary selection is insufficient. The guideline’s deliberate-targeting feature requires something further, such as the illustrative vulnerability or hostility-related features stated in it.

3. A single burglary would have fallen within category 2. The four burglaries were properly dealt with concurrently, but each sentence could be adjusted above the category 2 range to reflect their combined criminality. The appellant’s previous good character, first custodial sentence, remorse, co-operation and recovery of the property required mitigation, followed by full credit for the early guilty pleas.

4. Immediate custody was necessary and suspension would have been wrong. A consecutive term was also appropriate for the separate taking of the car, but its seriousness had to be assessed without double counting the burglary context. A two-month term after plea credit was sufficient.

5. For the insurance offence, section 147A did not apply because no custodial sentence had been imposed for that offence. The court applied section 147B of the Sentencing Act 2000, whose effect it treated as mirroring section 35B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The analysis in R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455 was directly transferable. A 13-month disqualification was substituted so as to produce an effective four-month disqualification.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in [2018] EWCA Crim 1508, substituted an 18-month total sentence and varied the driving disqualification to 13 months.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 11 January 2018 imposed concurrent two-year detention terms for burglary, four months consecutively for taking a motor vehicle without consent, and an 18-month driving disqualification.
• Magistrates’ court: On 16 November 2017 accepted guilty pleas and committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence.