R v Marian Catalin Patilea & Anor

For an attempted theft, sentence must be based on the loss intended in the proved incident, where actual loss was prevented. Losses from earlier offences and consequential business losses cannot be attributed without proof to the criminal standard. The offender’s culpability and the intended loss must be assessed by reference to the applicable guideline category. A breach of an employee’s responsibility to safeguard goods is not necessarily a breach of a high degree of trust. Guilty plea credit must reflect the stage at which the plea was offered. Where a custodial sentence of less than two years is imposed, the sentencing court should address the guidance on suspension and explain why suspension is inappropriate. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences to nine months and six months’ immediate imprisonment.

Two brothers pleaded guilty to attempting to steal parcels from a delivery lorry. The Crown Court at Warwick sentenced Marian Catalin Patilea to 90 weeks’ imprisonment and Mihaita Viorel Patilea to 54 weeks’ imprisonment.

They appealed against sentence, arguing that the harm had been wrongly categorised, that the upward adjustment was excessive and that the sentences should have been suspended. The central issues were the proper assessment of intended loss, culpability, guilty plea credit and suspension of the custodial terms.

1. Appeals allowed. The sentences were quashed and immediate terms of nine months’ imprisonment for Marian Catalin Patilea and six months’ imprisonment for Mihaita Viorel Patilea were substituted.
2. Sentencing was confined to the single attempted theft proved on 7 July 2023. The loss of the employer’s Amazon contract and losses from earlier thefts could not be attributed to the appellants. The intended loss was the value of the parcels in the van that day, assessed at between £10,000 and £40,000.
3. Because the actual loss had been prevented, the intended loss was used under the applicable guideline. The harm fell at the lower end of category 2, with no significant additional harm.
4. Culpability was category B. The offending involved two people and some planning. Marian had breached the responsibility attached to his employment, but the evidence did not establish a breach of a high degree of trust, a wider conspiracy or knowledge of other parcel thefts. The appropriate category was therefore 2B, with a starting point of one year’s custody.
5. The Recorder had given excessive guilty plea credit. A plea to attempted theft was not offered until three weeks before trial, so the proper reduction was 10 to 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent. The resulting sentences were nine months for Marian, who was more culpable, and six months for Mihaita, who was the junior participant.
6. The sentencing remarks did not address the guidance on suspension. It was not apparent that any factor making suspension inappropriate applied, given the absence of danger to the public, the positive pre-sentence reports, the prospect of rehabilitation and the absence of poor compliance. The court nevertheless dealt with the appeals by reducing the terms, because the appellants had already spent nearly four months in custody and would shortly be released on licence.

• Crown Court at Warwick: On 12 August 2024, Mr Recorder Steel KC sentenced Marian Catalin Patilea to 90 weeks’ immediate imprisonment and Mihaita Viorel Patilea to 54 weeks’ immediate custody.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court granted leave, allowed both appeals, quashed the sentences and substituted immediate terms of nine months and six months respectively.