R v Liam Derek Miles

For the high-culpability A category of the offence-specific burglary guideline, a significant degree of planning or organisation requires materially more thought and preparation than conduct showing only some planning. An offender’s movement from the front to the rear of a dwelling and an attempt to open the rear door may establish medium culpability B, but does not without more establish high culpability A.

Where an attempted burglary is properly categorised as B1 because persons were present, the sentencing court must reflect both aggravating factors and the reduction required because the offence was an attempt. Immediate custody may remain necessary where the offender committed the offence while on licence, has complied poorly with orders, and lacks sufficiently strong mitigating factors to justify suspension.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to attempted burglary of a dwelling and possession of class C drugs. He had approached the house at night, moved to its rear, entered the garden and tried the rear-door handle while the occupier and his girlfriend were present.

At Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court, the judge classified the attempted burglary as category A, high culpability, and category 1. Applying the relevant guideline, the judge imposed 28 months’ imprisonment after full credit for the guilty plea. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the offending was not high culpability A.

1. Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Dingemans, giving the judgment of the court, held that the original 28-month sentence was wrong in principle because the attempted burglary had been placed in the high-culpability A category.

2. The appellant’s conduct showed some planning or organisation: he moved from the front of the house to the rear and tried the rear-door handle. It did not, however, show the significant degree of planning or organisation required for category A. That description required more thought and planning than the evidence established.

3. The proper classification was therefore medium culpability B. Category 1 remained correct because persons were on the premises at the time of the offending. The B1 starting point was two years’ custody.

4. The court took account of the appellant’s previous convictions, his commission of the offence while on licence, and his drug intoxication. It also allowed a reduction because the offence was an attempt and for the other mitigation identified by the sentencing judge. The aggravating factors justified an uplift to 30 months before credit for plea. The one-third guilty-plea reduction produced a sentence of 20 months.

5. A suspended sentence was not appropriate. The appellant had been recalled on licence after his previous burglary sentence, had offended while on licence, showed no sufficiently proximate prospect of rehabilitation, and had no strong personal mitigation or identified harmful impact on others. The 28-month sentence was quashed and replaced with 20 months’ immediate imprisonment. The no-separate-penalty order on count two remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — R v Liam Derek Miles, [2024] EWCA Crim 1474: allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the 28-month sentence and substituted 20 months’ immediate imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne — on 8 August 2024, imposed 28 months’ imprisonment for attempted burglary after credit for the guilty plea; no separate penalty was imposed for possession of class C drugs.