Finn, R. v

In sentencing for handling stolen goods, the monetary value of the goods is not determinative of harm. The loss of a motorcar can amount to significant additional harm because of its substantial practical value to its user, even where its monetary value lies at a category boundary. Totality is assessed by looking at the aggregate sentence, including concurrent terms and counts attracting no separate penalty.

A driving disqualification must separately identify the discretionary period and the extensions under sections 35 A and 35 B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. A further extended driving-test order cannot be made where the offender is already subject to one.

The appellant pleaded guilty before magistrates to receiving stolen goods, dangerous driving, driving without insurance, going equipped and driving while disqualified. On 31 July 2020, the Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne imposed a total of 30 months’ imprisonment and a driving disqualification.

He appealed by leave of the single judge. He challenged the categorisation and sentence for handling stolen goods, and contended that the aggregate sentence failed to reflect totality. The court also considered the correct formulation of the driving disqualification and the validity of a further extended driving-test order.

1. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The total sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment involved neither an error of principle nor manifest excess. The further extended driving-test order was, however, incorrect and had to be quashed if it had not already been corrected under the slip rule.

2. The Recorder was entitled to treat the handling offence as lying on the cusp between harm categories 2 and 3. Although the stolen car was valued at £1,000, its loss could cause significant additional harm to its user. There was no basis for assuming that it would promptly be returned. An adjusted starting point of 18 months, increased to two years before credit for plea because of the appellant’s record and licence breach, was justified.

3. The dangerous-driving and driving-while-disqualified sentences were not challenged and were amply justified. The driving was exceptionally dangerous, occurred while evading police, and was aggravated by the appellant’s disqualification and extensive driving record. The Recorder had properly addressed totality by making the going-equipped and driving-while-disqualified terms concurrent, and by imposing no separate penalty for driving without insurance.

4. Applying R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455, the court expressed the disqualification separately: a three-year discretionary period, a seven-month extension under section 35 A, and an eight-month uplift under section 35 B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, totalling 51 months. Sections 34(4) and 34(4B) required at least two years’ disqualification. Section 36(7) prohibited a further extended driving-test order because the appellant remained subject to the order imposed in 2017.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by leave of the single judge, dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2020] EWCA Crim 1895, but corrected the ancillary driving orders by separately specifying the periods of disqualification and quashing the further extended driving-test order.
• Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne — on 31 July 2020, sentenced the appellant to a total of 30 months’ imprisonment for handling stolen goods and driving offences, and imposed a driving disqualification with an extended driving-test requirement.