R v Charlie James Reeves

A sentencing court must correct a material error in applying a guideline starting point because the error may affect the whole sentencing exercise. Where harm is at the bottom of a category and culpability lies between two categories, the appropriate starting point should be anchored to the relevant guideline ranges rather than an erroneous midpoint. Personal mitigation and good character must receive appropriate weight. An upward adjustment is unwarranted where aggravating factors do not outweigh mitigation. A properly reasoned decision whether to suspend custody will not be disturbed on appeal absent legal error.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton to two counts of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968. He received concurrent sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment. The offending involved two recently stolen cars recovered from a unit rented by him.

With leave of the single judge, he appealed against sentence. The grounds concerned guideline categorisation, the adjustment for aggravating and mitigating features, credit for the guilty plea, and the decision not to suspend custody. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge had materially misapplied the guideline and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment were quashed. They were replaced by immediate imprisonment for 14 months on count 3, with a concurrent sentence of seven and a half months on count 4.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the custody threshold was crossed, and correctly allowed 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea. His decision not to suspend the sentence disclosed no legal error. He had considered the relevant factors in the guideline, including compliance history, risk to the public, rehabilitation prospects, the effect of custody on others and the strength of mitigation. The Court of Appeal would not interfere with that fully reasoned exercise of discretion.
3. However, the judge misstated the Category 2B starting point as two years when it was one year. That error affected the subsequent reasoning. Given that harm was at the bottom of Category 2 and culpability lay on the cusp of Categories A and B, the better approach was to work from the midpoint between the lower ends of the relevant guideline ranges. That produced a starting point of one year.
4. The 50 per cent upward adjustment for aggravating and mitigating features was excessive. The offending was not particularly sophisticated, there was significant personal mitigation, and the appellant’s good character had not been given appropriate weight. No adjustment was required at step 4 because the aggravating factors did not outweigh the mitigating factors.
5. The appropriate starting points were 12 months for the Range Rover offence and 10 months for the lower-value Audi offence. After the guilty plea reduction, the sentences were nine months and seven and a half months. Applying totality, the overall sentence was limited to 14 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the concurrent 20-month sentences and substituted sentences of 14 months and seven and a half months, concurrent: [2023] EWCA Crim 395.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: following guilty pleas, imposed concurrent sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment on 23 December 2022.