R v James Dymond

Under the handling stolen goods sentencing guideline, possession of very recently stolen goods from a domestic burglary or robbery may establish high culpability. The domestic character of the burglary should not then be counted again as an additional harm factor. A guideline error will not justify extending time or granting leave to appeal where it was unarguably immaterial and the sentence was not arguably excessive after all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors were considered. Serious offending and a lengthy criminal record may justify immediate custody despite personal caring responsibilities.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester, to handling stolen goods and three driving offences. He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment for handling stolen goods, with no separate penalty for the driving offences, and was disqualified from driving for 27 months.

He renewed his application for a 46-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence. The issues were whether the sentencing guideline had been applied incorrectly, whether that error made the sentence arguably excessive, and whether an extension of time would serve any useful purpose.

Application refused. The court refused to extend time and stated that it would in any event refuse leave to appeal.

1. The sentencing guideline had been misapplied. Possession of very recently stolen goods from a domestic burglary satisfied the high-culpability criterion. The Recorder had then apparently treated the domestic burglary as an additional harm factor, thereby counting the same feature twice.
2. The correct classification was category 2A, because the goods were of high value but there were no additional harm factors. The starting point was three years’ custody, with a range of one year six months to four years.
3. The error was nevertheless unarguably immaterial. The Recorder had substantially reduced the sentence for strong personal mitigation. The seriousness of the offending and the applicant’s lengthy criminal record justified a significant upward adjustment.
4. Immediate custody was justified despite the applicant’s caring responsibilities. The 30-month sentence, after the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction, was not arguably excessive. The point concerning confusion about the sentencing hearing time had no merit.

Since a successful appeal would serve no purpose, the extension application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 1051, the court refused an extension of time and indicated that leave to appeal against sentence would also have been refused.
• Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester: The applicant pleaded guilty on 7 December 2022 and was sentenced on 12 January 2023 to 30 months’ imprisonment for handling stolen goods, with no separate penalty for the driving offences.