R v Sita Tamang

When sentencing theft by a carer from elderly and infirm residents, harm is not measured by monetary value alone. Sentimental value, emotional distress and the loss of trust are material. Multiple offences, victims and abuses of trust may increase the overall sentence, subject to totality.

A sentencing court must give proper effect to personal mitigation and unjustified delay, as well as credit for a guilty plea. Theft from vulnerable people by a trusted carer will usually require immediate custody because of its gravity and deterrent purpose. A custodial term may nevertheless be suspended where powerful countervailing factors make suspension just and proportionate, including the significant harm that imprisonment would cause to a very young child.

The appellant, a night carer in a dementia care home, stole rings and a necklace from three elderly residents. The jewellery was recovered shortly afterwards. She admitted the offences, pleaded guilty at an early stage and had no previous convictions.

At Canterbury Crown Court, she received two years’ immediate imprisonment for four thefts. The judge adopted an overall starting point of three years, allowed one-third credit for the pleas, and declined to suspend the sentence.

She appealed on the grounds that the starting point was excessive, that mitigation had not been properly considered, and that the resulting sentence should have been suspended.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of two years’ immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The appropriate overall starting point, before mitigation, was 27 months’ imprisonment rather than three years.

2. Harm in theft from care-home residents could not be assessed by financial value alone. The jewellery had substantial personal value, and the thefts caused emotional distress and a lasting loss of confidence. Four offences against three vulnerable victims, each involving an abuse of trust, justified an uplift from the single-offence starting point. Totality nevertheless required a lower overall figure.

3. The sentencing judge failed to allow for substantial mitigation apart from guilty-plea credit. The appellant’s immediate admissions, co-operation, remorse, good character and the unacceptable 21-month delay between admissions and sentence required a significant reduction. The appropriate term after mitigation was 15 months after a trial, reduced by one-third to 10 months for the guilty pleas.

4. The court applied the guideline factors relevant to suspending custodial sentences of two years or less. Theft by a trusted carer from elderly and infirm people will usually require immediate custody, absent powerful contrary factors, because it breaches a fundamental trust and calls for deterrence. The approach was supported by R v Butt [2022] EWCA Crim 226 and R v Allen [2018] EWCA Crim 2189.

5. Here, rehabilitation prospects, personal mitigation, low risk, and especially the serious impact of imprisonment on the appellant’s child, who was just over one year old, made suspension just and proportionate. The 10-month term was suspended for one year, with a 10-day rehabilitation activity requirement and 30 hours’ unpaid work. The appellant was entitled to immediate release.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a 10-month term suspended for one year.

• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 15 December 2023, imposed two years’ immediate imprisonment following early guilty pleas to four theft offences.