Richards, R v

When sentencing for several offences, a court must assess the totality of the offending. Sentencing Guidelines directed to a single offence may be of limited assistance where the sentence must also reflect further offences and a substantial record for similar crime.

Even in serious and persistent dishonesty offending, the overall pre-plea sentence must remain proportionate. Where it is manifestly excessive, the appellate court should substitute the appropriate sentence and give the offender the applicable credit for a guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Isleworth to handling stolen goods, failing to surrender to custody, possessing an article for use in fraud, and theft. The offences were committed between 2015 and 2019. The theft involved the taking of a handbag containing personal items, keys and identifying documents.

The sentencing judge selected theft as the lead offence and imposed a concurrent sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for the other offences. The appellant had a lengthy record for dishonesty and was homeless, drug-dependent and receiving support for addiction and depression.

By leave of the single judge, she appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly when measured against the relevant theft guideline.

1. Appeal allowed. The court held that the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was right to conclude that the custody threshold had been passed and that an immediate custodial sentence was required. The appellant’s extensive record for similar dishonesty offences, and the fact that the later offences were committed while she was on police bail, were serious aggravating features.

3. The court accepted that the Sentencing Guidelines, being directed to a single offence, were of limited assistance. The lead sentence had to reflect the totality of the four offences as well as the appellant’s record. Nevertheless, the overall assessment still had to take account of the mitigating circumstances, including homelessness, drug addiction, engagement with treatment, and depression.

4. A pre-plea sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment was disproportionate. The appropriate pre-plea sentence was 21 months’ imprisonment. Applying full credit for the guilty plea reduced that term to 14 months.

5. The court quashed the 26-month sentence for theft and substituted 14 months’ imprisonment. It also substituted 10 months’ imprisonment, concurrent, for possessing an article for use in fraud. The concurrent sentences for handling stolen goods and failing to surrender were left undisturbed. The resulting total sentence was 14 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a total sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: On 12 November 2019, imposed concurrent custodial sentences, producing a total sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment.