Chana, R v

For domestic burglary, offending may fall within the highest guideline category where occupants are at home and the offending involves significant harm and high culpability. Targeted distraction burglaries against elderly or frail residents are capable of justifying that classification and substantial aggravation. Previous convictions and multiple offences may require an uplift from the guideline starting point, but the sentencing court must stand back and ensure that the overall sentence reflects totality. A sentence exceeding twice the category starting point may be disproportionate even where the offending is serious and the offender has a substantial record. Appropriate guilty-plea credit must then be applied to the sentence after trial.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two domestic burglaries committed within minutes of each other against residents of sheltered housing. He gained entry by falsely claiming to be undertaking electrical work, targeted an elderly man and an older woman, and stole money and a bankcard.

On 4 June 2020, the Crown Court at Wolverhampton, sentencing by HHJ Campbell, imposed concurrent sentences of 5 years and 2 months for each offence. The appellant appealed, contending that the sentences were manifestly excessive, particularly because category 1 was said to be directed towards the most serious dwelling-house burglaries and because his mitigation had been undervalued. The central issues were the proper guideline category, aggravating and mitigating features, guilty-plea credit and totality.

1. The appeal was allowed. The sentences of 5 years and 2 months were quashed and replaced by concurrent sentences of 52 months, or 4 years and 4 months.
2. The offending plainly fell within category 1 of the burglary guideline. The occupiers were at home, the harm was greater, and the culpability was high. The offences were targeted distraction burglaries against elderly people living in a sheltered community, whom the appellant regarded as easy targets. The category 1 starting point was 3 years, within a range of 2 to 6 years.
3. The sentencing judge was justified in increasing the sentence above the starting point to reflect two significant aggravating features: there were two offences and the appellant had substantial previous convictions, including numerous theft-related offences. The appellant’s long-term Class A drug addiction and personal difficulties were also relevant mitigation and had been taken into account.
4. However, the judge had to reflect totality by standing back from the individual features and assessing the overall sentence. The notional sentence after trial of 6 years and 6 months was too high because it exceeded twice the category starting point. On a fresh sentencing exercise, the Court considered that a sentence after trial of about 5 years and 6 months properly reflected all the circumstances.
5. Applying 20 per cent credit for the guilty plea produced a sentence of 52 months. The sentences were therefore quashed and substituted accordingly.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2020] EWCA Crim 1340, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The concurrent sentences of 5 years and 2 months were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of 4 years and 4 months.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton — On 4 June 2020, HHJ Campbell sentenced the appellant to 5 years and 2 months’ imprisonment for each of two domestic burglaries, to run concurrently.