REGINA v CONOR QUINN

Where a theft sentencing guideline assesses harm principally by the value of goods, the court must not apply it mechanistically if monetary value is of little relevance and that approach would be contrary to the interests of justice. Under Coroners and Justice Act 2009, section 125(1), significant non-financial harm may justify a flexible assessment. Potential serious reputational harm to a tightly regulated employer was relevant, although the stolen item caused no actual or intended financial loss.

A guilty plea may justify a reduction from a custodial to a community sentence. A custodial sentence must also satisfy the statutory seriousness threshold in Sentencing Act 2020, section 230(2).

The appellant pleaded guilty to stealing a surplus sample of viral vector material from his employer, a medical research company. The sample would otherwise have been disposed of and there was no evidence of actual or intended financial gain or loss. The Crown Court at Oxford imposed 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, with 200 hours’ unpaid work.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was how harm should be assessed under the Theft Offences Guideline where the item had no meaningful financial value to its owner but its removal created a risk of serious reputational harm to a tightly regulated business.

1. The appeal was allowed. The suspended custodial sentence was manifestly excessive. It was replaced by a community order requiring 200 hours’ unpaid work. The victim surcharge was reduced from £140 to £85.

2. The Theft Offences Guideline ordinarily assesses harm by financial loss and, where appropriate, intended loss. The stolen surplus sample caused no financial loss because it would have been destroyed, and the appellant had not intended to obtain financial or other benefit. Debate over whether it had a notional value of about £50,000 was therefore sterile.

3. A strict valuation-based assessment would have placed the harm at the lowest level. However, under section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the court could not adopt that mechanistic result where it would be contrary to the interests of justice. The employer’s work was tightly regulated and confidential. The theft created a high potential for serious reputational damage. That non-financial harm was relevant despite the absence of actual loss or damage.

4. The court also gave weight to the appellant’s good character, mental-health difficulties, unexplained delay, loss of employment and reputation, progress in new work, and early guilty plea. The guilty-plea guideline permits credit by selecting a community rather than custodial sentence. Applying section 230(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020, a community sentence was justified. Although imprisonment might have been justified after trial, unpaid work alone was the appropriate punishment in the unusual circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in [2021] EWCA Crim 1563, substituting a community order for the suspended custodial sentence.

• Crown Court at Oxford: On 1 July 2021, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months and 200 hours’ unpaid work for theft.

• Oxford Magistrates’ Court: On 18 May 2021, committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.