R v Michael Hanlon

A written basis of plea must be considered by the prosecution and the sentencing court. If disputed, the issue may require a Newton hearing; if accepted, sentence must proceed on the agreed factual basis. A bare assertion that a replacement cost is not accepted, without an alternative figure or detailed challenge, does not displace the evidence supporting that cost. In railway-cable theft, the low value of the cable does not remove the significant additional harm caused by public inconvenience, and category 1 harm may be justified. Deliberate targeting of rail infrastructure, together with planning, group offending and relevant equipment, can justify category A culpability. An appellate court will not reduce a sentence that is not manifestly excessive in the context of the total offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to theft, burglary and related offences. On 25 November 2025, the Crown Court at Cardiff imposed a total sentence of 51 months’ imprisonment, including the activation of part of a suspended sentence order.

After sentence, it emerged that the appellant had entered a written basis of plea concerning the theft of railway cable. He asserted that the cable was loose rather than cut and did not accept the stated replacement cost. The appeal concerned whether that basis should alter the assessment of harm or culpability, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Disposition. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the basis of plea did not require any modification.

1. Basis of plea. A guilty plea entered on a written basis requires the Crown and the court to consider whether that basis is accepted. If it is disputed, the factual issue may require a Newton hearing. If it is accepted, sentence must reflect the agreed factual basis. The basis here raised two distinct issues: whether the appellant had cut the cable, relevant to culpability, and whether the replacement cost was accepted, relevant to harm.
2. Harm. The assertion that the replacement cost was not accepted was unsupported by an alternative figure or detailed critique. The evidence supporting the stated cost could therefore properly form the basis of the sentencing assessment. A possible causation argument was not included in the basis of plea and could not affect the exercise. More broadly, theft of railway cable involves significant additional harm through public inconvenience and diversion from rail travel to cars. Deterrent sentences are usually appropriate. The low value of the cable did not make the offence category 2 or category 3; category 1 harm was justified.
3. Culpability. The fact that the appellant had not personally cut the cable did not reduce culpability. Burning the cable, possessing tools, significant planning and group offending supported category A. Railway infrastructure is particularly vulnerable because of its extensive network and limited means of patrol. Deliberate targeting of that vulnerability provided an additional basis for category A culpability.
4. Overall sentence. The four-year notional term for the lead offence was justified regardless of the precise harm categorisation. The two-year increase to reflect the other offending was generous. The sentencing exercise remained sound when the basis of plea was taken into account, and the appeal was dismissed. The three-month activation of the suspended sentence was not challenged.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 28 July 2026, dismissed the appeal against sentence under [2026] EWCA Crim 1064 .
2. Crown Court at Cardiff — On 25 November 2025, sentenced the appellant to a total of 51 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.