R v John Thomas Edden

A severe burglary sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because it reaches the top of the applicable guideline range. Where previous domestic burglary convictions engage section 314 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the court must impose the statutory custodial sentence unless exceptional circumstances exist. Separate criminality and harm from an attempted burglary may be reflected through the overall sentence and concurrent or consecutive terms, provided totality and proportionality are respected. Appellate intervention is inappropriate where any correction would be minimal tinkering.

The appellant pleaded guilty to a completed domestic burglary and an attempted domestic burglary committed on the same night. The completed burglary involved the entry of the home of a 91-year-old woman who lived alone; the attempted burglary involved an occupied family home. The Crown Court at Newcastle imposed four years and six months for the completed burglary and 18 months concurrently for the attempt.

The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the sentence for the completed burglary was manifestly excessive because it exceeded the relevant offence-specific guideline range.

Appeal dismissed.

1. Under section 314 of the Sentencing Act 2020, previous domestic burglary convictions required the imposition of an appropriate custodial sentence of three years unless exceptional circumstances justified a different outcome. The court also recorded the statutory limitation on credit for a guilty plea in that context.
2. The completed burglary was properly treated as a category B1, medium-culpability offence in category 1. The applicable guideline had a starting point of two years and a range of one to four years. The sentencing judge was entitled to sentence at the top of that range, having regard to the serious and relevant previous conviction, the vulnerable victim, the night-time offending, the presence of a child in the other occupied property, psychological harm and offending while on licence.
3. The attempted burglary involved separate criminality and separate harm. It might have justified a consecutive sentence. The judge was nevertheless entitled to increase the sentence for the completed burglary and make the sentence for the attempt concurrent, applying the Overarching Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality. The overall sentence had to remain proportionate and take account of mitigation.
4. Although the sentence was severe, the court considered that any adjustment would be minimal. It was therefore not manifestly excessive and appellate interference was unwarranted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 28 July 2023, the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2023] EWCA Crim 1082.
• Crown Court at Newcastle: On 24 March 2023, the appellant was sentenced to four years and six months for the completed burglary and 18 months concurrently for the attempted burglary.