Farrugia, R. v

An aggravated burglary may properly be placed in the highest sentencing category where the victim suffers significant psychological and physical injury in a home invasion, and the offence is planned, targeted and committed as a group attack. A brief duration or an asserted focus on searching the property does not diminish the seriousness of a victim’s terrifying ordeal and its continuing consequences. On those facts, a sentence within the applicable guideline range was upheld.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Basildon to aggravated burglary, contrary to section 10(1) of the Theft Act 1968. He received seven and a half years’ imprisonment on 27 February 2019.

Three men had entered the victim’s home by deception. The victim was restrained, moved around the house and left with physical injuries and substantial continuing anxiety. The sentencing judge treated the offence as Category 1, reflecting greater harm and higher culpability, adopted an eleven-year starting point, reduced it for mitigation and then applied a 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant contended that the offence was Category 2 or, alternatively, that a lower Category 1 starting point was required.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court upheld the seven-and-a-half-year sentence for aggravated burglary contrary to section 10(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to classify the offence as Category 1. Greater harm arose from the physical injury, significant psychological injury and commission of the offence in the victim’s home. Higher culpability arose from the substantial planning, the targeting of the house and the group attack.

3. The appellant’s attempt to characterise the incident as brief and principally directed to finding property ignored the terror inflicted on the victim and the continuing consequences for her. Those consequences justified the Category 1 assessment.

4. The applicable guideline range was nine to thirteen years’ custody, with a ten-year starting point. The judge’s adoption of an eleven-year starting point was appropriate for this exceptionally serious offending. The subsequent reduction to ten years for the appellant’s progress in prison was generous, and the 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea produced the final sentence.

5. The unsupported suggestion that improper pressure had been placed on the victim in relation to her victim personal statement was rejected. None of the appellant’s arguments disclosed a basis to interfere with sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s appeal against sentence was dismissed in [2019] EWCA Crim 1540.
• Crown Court at Basildon: On 27 February 2019, the appellant was sentenced to seven and a half years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to aggravated burglary.