R v John Dooley

A sentencing judge may sentence above a guideline starting point where aggravating features extend beyond those necessary to place an offence within the relevant guideline category. For burglary, substantial financial loss may justify an uplift in addition to the emotional and psychological harm and sentimental value that supported the category selection.

Previous convictions for theft and related offending may properly aggravate sentence, although their weight depends on the circumstances. Where separate offences are sentenced consecutively, the court must apply totality to the aggregate. A reduced aggregate sentence will not be manifestly excessive merely because the individual offences are serious and discrete.

John Dooley pleaded guilty to two dwelling burglaries committed in March 2021 and to failing to surrender to the court. He and an accomplice used a false water-leak pretext to gain access to the homes of two elderly or vulnerable victims. Cash, jewellery and personal documents were stolen. The victims suffered financial loss and significant emotional and psychological effects.

At the Crown Court at Southwark, the Recorder imposed consecutive sentences totalling five years and six months’ imprisonment. Dooley renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge had refused them. He contended that the judge had insufficiently reflected mitigation and totality, had wrongly increased the starting point for the second burglary, and had wrongly treated previous convictions as aggravating.

1. The renewed applications were refused. The court agreed entirely with the single judge’s reasons and held that none of the proposed grounds had merit.

2. Each burglary properly fell within Category 1A of the applicable sentencing guidelines, with a starting point of three years’ imprisonment. The Recorder was entitled to increase the starting point for the second burglary. Its Category 1A classification reflected the substantial emotional and psychological impact arising from the theft of items of sentimental value. The further fact that the stolen property had substantial financial value, exceeding £11,000, was an additional aggravating feature.

3. The Recorder was also entitled to treat the applicant’s previous convictions for theft and related offending as aggravating, while giving that factor limited weight. He was entitled to attach little weight to the remorse expressed in a letter, given the initial not-guilty pleas and the applicant’s absence from the jurisdiction for two years.

4. The pre-plea sentences identified for the individual burglaries, three years and six months and four years respectively, were not arguably manifestly excessive. The offences were discrete and materially aggravated. The Recorder assessed the aggregate before totality at about six years and reduced it to five years and six months. That application of totality did not render the overall sentence excessive or otherwise wrong.

5. Because the grounds lacked substantive merit, the court refused both leave to appeal and an extension of time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), single judge: The applications were refused on the papers.

• Crown Court at Southwark: On 7 June 2024, the Recorder imposed consecutive sentences totalling five years and six months’ imprisonment for two burglaries and failure to surrender.

• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 30 April 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to the second burglary.