Given that the appellant had: (i) admitted the offences of burglary and possession of heroin; (ii) asked the court to take into account a number of offences which might not otherwise have been attributed to him; and (iii) responded positively to his time in custody, the sentence of four-and-a-half-years would be quashed and a sentence of three-and-a-half years would be substituted.Appeal by the appellant ('D') against a sentence of four-and-a-half years imprisonment for two offences of burglary and one offence of possession of heroin, with leave of a single judge. D submitted that: (i) the sentence was excessive; (ii) insufficient credit had been given for his attitude in not only admitting the offences but asking for other burglaries to be taken into consideration; (iii) the homes which D had burgled had been unoccupied at the time and D did not stand to be sentenced as a professional burglar; (iv) D had no recent convictions for burglary and had never received a custodial sentence for burglary; and (v) considering guidelines in McInerney [2003] 1 CAR 627, a sentence of twelve to twenty-four months would have been appropriate.HELD: (1) The aggravating features of D's offending were the fact that he broke into homes of a number of people causing them distress. (2) He was also prepared to steal property including jewellery which as far as he could have known might well have had sentimental value to the occupants. (3) The mitigating features were that D not only admitted the offences but he also asked the court to take into account a number of offences which might not otherwise have been attributed to him. (4) He responded positively to his time in custody by making substantial efforts at rehabilitation. (5) The sentence of four-and-a-half years' would be quashed and a sentence of three-and-a-half years' would be substituted.Appeal allowed in part.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2510

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar