R v George William O’Hare & Ors

For exceptionally serious organised commercial burglaries using ram-raid or smash-and-grab methods, the Non-Domestic Burglary Guideline is not designed for the full gravity of the offending. Its stated range does not prevent a substantially higher sentence where there is meticulous planning, repeated offending, high-value loss, extensive damage, organised disposal of goods, and public alarm or danger.

Earlier appellate decisions concerning serious ram-raids remain valuable guidance. Each case must nevertheless be sentenced on its own facts. Where several offences are sentenced together, totality may justify a sentence above the range for an individual offence. Delay may mitigate sentence on the particular facts, but a complex investigation made difficult by deliberate concealment will not ordinarily justify a reduction.

Five appellants challenged sentences imposed by Her Honour Judge Duncan on 27 January 2023. The offences arose from an organised gang’s repeated high-value commercial burglaries in central London. The gang used stolen vehicles, cloned plates, temporary telephones, reconnaissance, disguises and pre-arranged disposal of stolen goods.

The appellants were sentenced for conspiracies to burgle, and Richard Walsh was also sentenced for aggravated burglary. The sentences reflected differing roles, prior records, guilty pleas and personal mitigation. The principal common issue was whether the judge set excessive starting points by relying on earlier ram-raid authorities alongside the Non-Domestic Burglary Guideline. The court also considered delay and issues specific to individual appellants.

1. All appeals were dismissed. The judge made no error of principle and none of the sentences was manifestly excessive.

2. The Non-Domestic Burglary Guideline was not designed for very serious, organised, high-value commercial burglaries committed by ram-raid and smash-and-grab methods. Although the offending fell, so far as the guideline applied, within Category A culpability and Category 1 harm, its range did not confine the proper sentence. Even a single offence of this gravity could properly merit a sentence considerably above five years.

3. The court approved continued reference to earlier ram-raid sentencing authorities. R v Lawlor [2012] EWCA Crim 1870 confirmed that ram-raids vary greatly and do not fit neatly within one guideline. The authorities remained valuable guidance for this exceptional type of offending, while sentencing remained fact-specific.

4. The judge was entitled to treat the gang’s meticulous planning, repeated use of stolen vehicles and false plates, deliberate avoidance of detection, use of tools and disguises, pre-arranged fencing, substantial losses and damage, and the fear caused to people present in central London as grave aggravating features. She had also individually assessed each offender’s role, criminality, mitigation, plea credit, parity and totality.

5. Delay may justify a reduction on the facts of a particular case. Here, however, the conspiracy’s duration, the number of defendants and offences, and the offenders’ measures to evade detection made the lengthy investigation and prosecution unsurprising. Delay afforded no mitigation.

6. For O’Hare, deduction of the determinate sentence already imposed for the substantive Tiffany burglary adequately avoided double punishment when that burglary was also relied on within the conspiracy. The distinct sentences imposed on the other appellants, including the consecutive sentence for McKee’s later Christian Dior conspiracy, properly reflected the totality of their offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2023] EWCA Crim 900, dismissed all appeals against sentence.
• Crown Court — Her Honour Judge Duncan sentenced the appellants on 27 January 2023 for conspiracies to burgle and, in Walsh’s case, aggravated burglary.