R v Gavin Lawson

Previous convictions may aggravate a sentence where the current offending demonstrates a return to an earlier criminal lifestyle and the offender’s past experience informed the approach to the offence. The age of the convictions is relevant but does not make them irrelevant. Significant planning, sophistication, breach of trust, multiple offenders, force and terror caused to victims may place non-domestic burglary towards the upper end of the applicable category range. An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence within that range where the sentencing judge made no error and the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

After a jury trial at the Crown Court at Shrewsbury, the appellant was convicted of one burglary offence and sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment. With leave, he appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He initially challenged both the offence categorisation and an 18-month uplift for previous convictions, but abandoned the categorisation ground at the hearing. The central issue was whether the appellant’s extensive but mostly old criminal record could justify the uplift, given that he had largely remained offence-free since 2012 apart from offences in 2016.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in culpability category A and harm category 1. The burglary involved significant and sophisticated planning. Two female shop workers were present throughout, substantial emotional impact was evidenced, and force was used. The appellant did not pursue the categorisation challenge at the hearing, and the court found no error in the judge’s approach.
2. Previous convictions may be treated as an aggravating feature notwithstanding the passage of time. Their relevance depends on the circumstances of the present offence. Here, the judge was entitled to conclude that the sophisticated planning showed a lapse back into the appellant’s former criminal lifestyle and that his earlier criminal conduct had informed his approach to the burglary. His previous offending therefore demonstrated relevant criminal know-how.
3. In the overall assessment, material considerations included the planning and sophistication, the breach of trust involved in using vehicles entrusted to the appellant through his employment, the involvement of two offenders, their use of balaclavas and force, and the terror caused to the victims. The offending was properly placed towards the upper end of the category 1A range. The sentence of three and a half years remained within that range and was not manifestly excessive.
4. The court agreed that a pre-sentence report was unnecessary. The appellant was represented by trial counsel, the sentencing judge had presided over the trial and knew the facts, and custody was inevitable. No sentencing error was established.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1431, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Shrewsbury: Following a jury trial on 28 August 2025, the appellant was convicted of burglary and sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment.