McLatchie, R. v

On a sentence appeal, the court may move above a sentencing-guideline category range where the aggravating features make the case sufficiently serious. A very serious record for domestic burglary, particularly where the offender is again liable to a statutory minimum sentence as a “three strikes” burglar, may justify the top of the guideline range or a sentence above it. Personal mitigation must be assessed in context. Its weight may be reduced where the circumstances relied upon are inconsistent with the offender’s decision to commit the offence. Additional criminality may also be reflected in the lead sentence. The question on appeal is whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Hull to domestic burglary and two fraud offences. He broke into an occupied student house at night, stole a wallet and used the stolen bank card to make two payments. He had an extensive record for dishonesty and domestic burglary and was liable to a third statutory minimum sentence as a “three strikes” burglar under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

The sentencing judge treated the burglary as a Category 1 offence under the Sentencing Council Guideline, with a three-year starting point and a range of two to six years. A six-year starting point was selected, reduced to four years for the guilty plea. The central issue was whether that sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the offending and the appellant’s personal mitigation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. The burglary was Category 1 under the Sentencing Council Guideline. The starting point was three years’ custody, with a range of two to six years. Greater harm arose because the occupier was at home, and culpability was higher because the appellant had gone equipped with a screwdriver. The night-time commission and the appellant’s very bad record for domestic burglary were significant aggravating features.
3. The guideline permitted movement outside the identified category range where the aggravating factors made the case sufficiently serious. For Category 1 burglary, that could mean a sentence above six years. This was such a case because it was the third occasion on which the appellant fell to be sentenced as a “three strikes” burglar under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The judge nevertheless exercised restraint by selecting six years rather than a higher starting point.
4. The mitigation relating to the appellant’s partner’s serious illness was entitled to sympathy but had reduced force because the appellant had chosen to go burgling rather than remain at home to care for her. His own ill-health and the pandemic did not make the sentence excessive. The sentencing judge was also entitled to reflect the two fraud offences in the lead sentence; those offences would themselves have warranted nine months’ imprisonment after trial.
5. Full credit for the early guilty pleas reduced the six-year starting point to four years. The sentence was upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the four-year sentence imposed after the Crown Court sentencing decision.
• Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Hull: The appellant pleaded guilty to domestic burglary and two fraud offences. He received four years’ imprisonment for the burglary, with concurrent six-month sentences for the fraud offences.