R v Gareth Owen

A sentencing court must follow relevant guidelines unless it is satisfied that doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. In a case of prolific and persistent shop theft, the scale, persistence and aggregate value of the offending, considered with associated thefts, may justify departure from offence-specific guideline ranges.

The court may instead fix a sentence reflecting the totality of the offending, imposing concurrent sentences so that the overall term does not breach the totality principle. A severe sentence is not manifestly excessive where it properly reflects the sustained offending, its impact and materially aggravating antecedents.

The appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Maidstone for 29 shop thefts, theft from a person, and theft of a bicycle. The combined value of the stolen goods exceeded £5,000. He had 47 previous convictions, including 69 theft offences.

The Recorder departed from the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines, assessed 48 months’ imprisonment as the appropriate total sentence, and reduced it by one third for early guilty pleas. He imposed concurrent terms of 32 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed, contending that the departure from the guideline range was unjustified and that mitigating evidence of remorse and steps towards addressing drug addiction had not been adequately considered.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to depart from the relevant guidelines. Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires a court to follow relevant guidelines unless that would be contrary to the interests of justice. The scale, persistence and value of 29 shop thefts over three months, together with two further thefts involving substantial value, justified that conclusion.

2. R v Harvey [2020] EWCA Crim 354 confirmed that the value of goods may be aggregated for multiple shop thefts and that, in an appropriate case, their scale, persistence and value may justify departure from the guidelines. The Recorder’s approach was consistent with that authority.

3. The Recorder could fix a sentence for the total offending and impose that term concurrently on each count. That reflected the overall criminality without infringing the totality principle.

4. The Recorder did not specifically mention the appellant’s remorse or efforts to address addiction. Nevertheless, the sentence was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. It was severe, but it was justified by the persistent offending, the early-morning thefts from residential premises, the victims’ impact statements and the appellant’s extensive record of theft convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 780.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: on 28 January 2025, imposed concurrent sentences of 32 months’ imprisonment for 31 theft offences.