Gorry & Anor, R. v

A sentence may exceed the range in a guideline directed to a single burglary where the offender is sentenced for a particularly serious conspiracy involving multiple burglaries. The statutory maximum remains reserved for the most serious examples of the offence.

The power in section 147(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 applies to a conspiracy only where a vehicle was used directly in forming the conspiracy. Use of vehicles merely in acts done in furtherance of it does not engage that power.

The appellants were convicted at Cardiff Crown Court of conspiracy to burgle dwelling-houses and conspiracy to steal cars. The conspiracies involved sophisticated burglaries to obtain keys and steal high-value vehicles. The sentencing judge treated the three proved burglaries as examples of wider offending and imposed concurrent sentences of nine years on Coulson and seven years on Gorry for each count, with driving disqualifications.

Both appellants appealed their sentences. The court considered whether the custodial terms were excessive and whether the court had power to disqualify them from driving for these conspiracy offences.

1. The appeals were allowed to a limited extent. The concurrent sentences for conspiracy to burgle were upheld. The sentences for conspiracy to steal were reduced to six years for Coulson and five years for Gorry, to run concurrently. The driving-disqualification orders were quashed.

2. The judge was entitled to find that the conspiracies extended beyond the three proved burglaries. The evidence permitted the inference that further vehicles had been stolen and that at least some had been acquired through burglaries. The appellants were sentenced for conspiracies in which burglaries had already occurred, rather than for anticipated future burglaries.

3. The burglary guideline concerned a single offence. A particularly serious conspiracy could justify a sentence above its range. R v Bham [2013] EWCA Crim 10 did not make the starting points excessive because it differed materially: its offender had no previous convictions, his role could not be identified as that of a ringleader, and sentencing was confined to participation in three burglaries. The respective sentences for the burglary conspiracy properly reflected Coulson's leading role and Gorry's lesser role.

4. By the combined effect of section 7 of the Theft Act 1968 and section 3(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, seven years was the maximum for conspiracy to steal. As the maximum is reserved for the most serious examples, it was not warranted here.

5. Section 147(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 did not authorise disqualification. Applying R v Riley (1984) 5 Cr App R(S) 335, the court held that a vehicle must have been used directly to form the conspiracy. Its use in acts performed in furtherance of the conspiracy was insufficient.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Allowed the sentence appeals only to reduce the sentences for conspiracy to steal and to quash the driving-disqualification orders.

• Cardiff Crown Court. The appellants were convicted of conspiracy to burgle dwelling-houses and conspiracy to steal cars. Concurrent sentences were imposed on each count, together with driving disqualifications.