R v Sabina Rova

Sentencing must apply the relevant guideline without double-counting features already reflected in the offence categorisation. High value already included in the harm assessment should not be counted again, although breach of trust and associated fraud may justify an adjustment.

Proper allowance must be made for powerful mitigation, including youth, good character, genuine remorse and the particularly harsh impact of custody on a parent of young children.

Separate burglaries involving different victims and occasions may attract consecutive sentences. Totality may be addressed by ordering lesser associated sentences concurrently. Immediate custody can remain proportionate where it is the shortest sentence commensurate with the overall seriousness of the offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty to three hotel burglaries and associated fraud offences. The offences involved the theft of high-value jewellery, cash and bankcards. One burglary was charged as domestic burglary under the Theft Act 1968; the others were non-domestic burglaries, with fraud offences under the Fraud Act 2006.

The Crown Court at Southwark imposed a total sentence of five years and eight months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the judge had wrongly assessed coercion and culpability, failed to give proper weight to mitigation, double-counted aggravating features and imposed a manifestly excessive total sentence.

The central issues were the proper guideline categorisation, the treatment of aggravating and mitigating features, and the application of totality.

Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the sentences of three years and two years and eight months for the Hilton Hotel and Other House Hotel burglaries. It substituted sentences of 18 months and 12 months respectively, to run consecutively. The concurrent sentences remained unaffected.

1. The judge was entitled to find category 1A culpability for the two serious burglaries. Both involved extensive planning and the theft of high-value goods. The judge was also entitled to treat the burglaries as the lead offences.
2. The judge was entitled to reject speculation that the appellant was coerced. Her repeated denials, the inconclusive evidence and her autonomous use of stolen credit cards supported the conclusion that some influence might be recognised, but coercion could not properly be assumed.
3. The Hilton starting point of three years was permissible. However, the high value of the jewellery had already been reflected in the guideline categorisation and could not be double-counted. Breach of trust arising from access to guest rooms justified an upward adjustment, as could the associated fraud offences.
4. Powerful mitigation had not received proper allowance. The appellant’s good character, relative youth, genuine remorse and the particularly harsh effect of imprisonment on her young children significantly outweighed the aggravating features. The appropriate notional sentences before credit were no more than 24 months for the Hilton burglary and 18 months for the Other House burglary.
5. The non-domestic burglary at the Other House was wrongly treated as domestic burglary. Its correct starting point was two years. The fact that the hotel room was effectively the occupant’s home was, however, an additional aggravating feature.
6. Totality did not require concurrent sentences for the two separate burglaries, which involved different victims and occasions. Consecutive sentences were justified, while the remaining offences were properly ordered to run concurrently. After guilty plea credit, the total sentence was 30 months. Immediate custody remained lawful, pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 1168, the appeal was allowed to the extent stated. The two lead sentences were quashed and replaced by consecutive sentences of 18 months and 12 months.
• Crown Court at Southwark: On 25 April 2023, HHJ Nicholas Rimmer sentenced the appellant to a total of five years and eight months’ imprisonment.