R v Grama Zorila & Anor

In sentencing an organised conspiracy to steal from shops, a judge may find high culpability where the offending involves substantial planning, several participants, travel to targeted locations and arrangements to dispose of stolen goods. The value and scale of the offending may justify an increased custodial starting point within the applicable sentencing range.

A sentence of immediate custody may remain necessary despite caring responsibilities and some prospects of rehabilitation. The seriousness of the conspiracy, culpability and harm may properly outweigh those mitigating factors where appropriate punishment cannot otherwise be achieved.

Grama Zorila and Ana Iosif pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Norwich to conspiracy to steal. They participated in a group which carried out planned, high-value thefts of cosmetics and clothing from shops in several towns during May 2023.

On 22 August 2024, the Crown Court sentenced each applicant to 23 months’ imprisonment. Their applications for permission to appeal against sentence were referred by the Registrar to the full Court of Appeal. They contended that culpability was lower, that shorter sentences were appropriate, and that the sentences should have been suspended because of the effect on their young children.

1. The applications for permission to appeal against sentence were refused. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in Category A culpability under the theft-from-shop guideline. It was a significant and carefully organised conspiracy involving several people, targeted travel, repeated high-value thefts, and an evident system for disposing of the goods.
2. The judge was entitled to adopt a starting point of two years’ imprisonment. That figure lay within the applicable Category A range. The judge could have regard by analogy to the loss bands in the general theft guideline when assessing the very substantial value of the goods stolen.
3. The Court found no error in the adjustments made for the applicants’ previous convictions or their late guilty pleas. The resulting sentences of 23 months’ imprisonment were therefore not arguable as excessive.
4. The judge had considered the community and custodial sentences guideline, including rehabilitation prospects and the effect on the applicants’ children. The children had arrangements for care, both during the offending and while the applicants were in custody. Given the combined culpability and harm of the conspiracy, the judge was entitled to conclude that only immediate custody could provide appropriate punishment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): applications for permission to appeal against sentence refused in [2024] EWCA Crim 1475.
• Crown Court at Norwich: on 22 August 2024, each applicant was sentenced to 23 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to steal.