R v Adam Smith

For multiple non-domestic burglaries, the applicable guideline category provides a starting point for the sentencing exercise, but persistent offending and extensive relevant convictions may justify a sentence outside its single-offence range. The overall sentence must nevertheless remain proportionate to the seriousness of the offending and the offender’s record.

A court may refuse to suspend custody where the offender’s conduct and history provide a sound basis for concluding that rehabilitation requirements are unlikely to be observed.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Croydon Magistrates’ Court to four offences of non-domestic burglary, contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, and was committed to the Crown Court at Southwark for sentence.

On 16 October 2024, the Crown Court imposed four concurrent terms of two years’ imprisonment. The judge treated the offending as category 2B under the Sentencing Council guideline, but imposed a sentence above the category range because of the appellant’s persistent offending and extensive record. He declined to suspend the terms.

The appeal concerned the guideline categorisation and length of the sentence, and whether the custodial terms should have been suspended.

Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the four concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment and substituted four concurrent sentences of 16 months’ imprisonment. It dismissed the challenge to the refusal to suspend the sentences.

1. The judge was correct to treat the burglaries as category 2 harm and category B, medium culpability. Although opportunistic, they were not impulsive. They formed part of a persistent pattern of offending to fund the appellant’s drug habit.

2. The category 2B starting point and range assumed a single offence. The judge’s pragmatic approach of imposing an overall sentence for all four offences was correct. The appellant’s persistent offending and extensive previous convictions justified a sentence outside the category 2B range. However, three years before guilty-plea credit was excessive, since it was outside both category 2B and category 1B. The appropriate pre-credit sentence was two years’ imprisonment, at the top of the category 1B range. One-third credit for the guilty pleas produced concurrent terms of 16 months.

3. The refusal to suspend custody was justified. The judge was entitled to infer from the appellant’s disruptive conduct, failure to attend, prior breaches of rehabilitative court orders, and substantial burglary record that he lacked the motivation to cooperate with probation and drug-rehabilitation requirements. The Court of Appeal would not second guess that evaluative conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal against sentence only as to length, substituting four concurrent sentences of 16 months’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 221.
• Crown Court at Southwark — on 16 October 2024, imposed four concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment and declined to suspend them.
• Croydon Magistrates’ Court — on 12 June 2024, accepted guilty pleas to four burglaries and committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence.