R v Aimee Trounce

A compensation order may require one participant in joint offending to meet all or part of the victim’s loss; it need not be reduced merely because other participants are absent, subject to means. The court must consider whether the repayment period is reasonable. There is no fixed maximum, but excessively long periods should generally be avoided. Proportionality and undue burden depend on the offence and offender, including income, payment burden, role and expected benefit. For a low-income offender, payments of about one-eighth of net income for more than three years were disproportionate. A two-year period was reasonable.

The appellant pleaded guilty to theft in the Crown Court at Aylesbury. She received a two-year community order and a compensation order for £4,000, payable at £150 every 28 days. The payment rate was later varied to £100 per month.

The appellant challenged the compensation order on the grounds that the loss figure reflected retail replacement costs, that liability should be apportioned among all participants, and that insufficient regard had been given to her means, health, role and the repayment period. The appeal concerned solely the compensation order, with the central issue being whether the payment burden and duration were reasonable and proportionate.

Appeal allowed in part. The compensation order was quashed and an order for £2,400 payable to John Lewis Plc at £100 per calendar month was substituted.

1. The judge was entitled to rely on the replacement costs stated in the NG19 form. The appellant had not challenged those figures when both parties were represented. Had the issue been raised, directions could have been given for further evidence.
2. There was no principle requiring the loss figure to be reduced merely because only some participants in the theft were before the court. By analogy with R v Beddow (1987) 9 Cr App R(S) 235, a compensation order may cover the full loss against one participant where other participants lack means. The judge was entitled to divide the loss between the defendants before the court, subject to their means.
3. The appellant’s mental-health argument could not succeed because she had not relied on supporting evidence when the judge directed a further hearing on means. The judge acted reasonably in allowing further information about outgoings to be provided. In the absence of supporting documentation, his reduction of the payment to £100 per month could not be criticised.
4. The judge was required to consider whether the repayment period was unreasonable. R v Bradburn (1973) 57 Cr App R 948 treated a four-year period as unreasonable. R v Ganyo [2012] 1 Cr App R(S) 108 confirmed that there was no bright-line outer limit, while R v York [2019] 4 WLR 13 stated that excessively long periods should be avoided and that periods of up to two years, or exceptionally three years, were generally unassailable.
5. Proportionality and undue burden depended on the circumstances of the offence and offender. Payments of £100 per month represented about one-eighth of the appellant’s net income and would have continued for more than three years. Considering also her lesser role and the reasonable expectation that her benefit matched that role, the burden was disproportionate. Two years was the reasonable repayment period.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2022] EWCA Crim 1737, the appeal was allowed to the extent that the £4,000 compensation order was quashed and replaced with an order for £2,400 payable at £100 per month.
2. Crown Court at Aylesbury: Following the appellant’s guilty plea, the court imposed a community order and compensation of £4,000, later varying the instalments to £100 per month.