R v Steven Nunan

For sentencing under the burglary guideline, an implement brought solely to gain entry is not a weapon merely because it was carried to the scene. Where the evidence shows that it was used as a tool and put away once entry was gained, the offence falls within the medium-culpability category for being equipped for burglary rather than the high-culpability category for carrying a weapon.

The applicable starting point must then be adjusted for the relevant harm, aggravating features and mitigation. A guilty-plea reduction is applied to the resulting sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two dwelling-house burglaries and a theft offence contrary to the Theft Act 1968. At Lewes Crown Court he received consecutive sentences totalling 44 months’ imprisonment.

He appealed his sentence with limited leave on the question whether the burglary committed on 16 April 2024 had correctly been placed in category A2 of the burglary guideline. He also renewed grounds concerning the weight given to his personal mitigation. The central issue was whether a hammer used to enter an unoccupied house was a weapon, giving high culpability, or an implement showing that he was equipped for burglary, giving medium culpability.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The sentencing judge erred in treating the 16 April 2024 burglary as category A2. The video evidence showed that the appellant used the hammer to gain entry to an unoccupied property, then put it in his rucksack before searching the house. The proper inference was that it was a tool, not a weapon intended to be shown to or used to threaten occupants.

2. The offence therefore fell within category B2, with medium culpability for being equipped for burglary. Its starting point was 18 months’ imprisonment, rather than the two-year starting point for category A2.

3. A substantial uplift was justified. The burglary caused at least moderate psychological injury to the occupiers and involved property worth £9,000, representing at least moderate financial loss. The appellant’s serious previous convictions aggravated the offence. His frank police admissions, remorse and period without offending since 2018 mitigated it. The appropriate pre-plea sentence was 27 months, after an uplift to reflect harm and aggravation; the full one-third guilty-plea reduction produced 18 months’ imprisonment.

4. The renewed grounds had no merit. The 14-month sentence for the other burglary properly reflected the available mitigation after guilty-plea credit. The remaining consecutive sentences also properly reflected totality. The overall term was reduced from 44 to 38 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 216, allowed the sentence appeal in part by reducing the sentence for the 16 April 2024 burglary from 24 to 18 months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Lewes — On 21 May 2024, imposed consecutive sentences totalling 44 months’ imprisonment after the appellant had been committed for sentence.

• Magistrates’ Court — The appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.