[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Palmer, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 114 (17 January 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/114.html Cite as: [2008] EWCA Crim 114

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		Thursday, 17 January 2008

1. MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS: On 4th September 2007 at the Crown Court at Harrow, the appellant was sentenced by His Honour Judge Moss to a total term of imprisonment of three years in respect of a number of different offences of dishonesty. With the leave of the single judge he appeals to this court against that sentence. The only ground of appeal is that the total term of three years is manifestly excessive.
2. The first offences in time occurred on 4th December 2005 in the town of Slough. During the evening of that day, the police received a report that a number of motor vehicles which had been parked in a public car park were the subject of attack by a number of men. On investigation the police discovered that four vehicles had been broken into and that a number of items had been taken from three of them. The same day a car in which the appellant was a passenger was stopped by police officers and the men inside were arrested. When he was interviewed about the offences, the appellant claimed that he had been asleep in the car and had simply been woken up by police sirens.
3. In due course the appellant was charged with three offences of theft and one offence of attempted theft arising out of this incident. He was then released on bail and he was due to appear at the Slough Magistrates Court on 5th May 2006. However, on that day the appellant failed to surrender to his bail. Accordingly a bench warrant was issued which was in due course executed.
4. Although the appellant remained in custody for some time, he was released on bail again in early August 2006. The appellant committed his next offence on 16th September 2006. This was in Luton. On that day a lady who was in the process of going to work decided first to buy herself a television set worth about £1,500. Because she was due to start work shortly after the purchase, she left the television set in her locked car at or near her place of work and then began her shift which was at 4.30 in the afternoon. At about 6.30 she was informed that her car had been broken into and when she went to investigate she discovered that the television set had been stolen. The appellant was soon implicated in this offence because he had cut himself when breaking into the car and he had left traces of his blood within the car which allowed a DNA match to be made. He was arrested on 30th October 2006 for this offence and made no comment when he was interviewed.
5. On 8th November 2006 he was again released on bail. The terms of his bail demanded that he surrender to the magistrates on 15th November, but again the appellant failed to appear. The day before, however, the appellant committed his next offence. Again it was the theft of an item from a motor vehicle. At about 6.30 pm on this day the owner of the vehicle in question parked it at a Travelodge in Burnt Oak - obviously because he intended to stay the night at the Travelodge. By 9.00 pm the car had been broken into and an item taken from it, that item being a charge unit for a satellite navigation system. On this occasion the appellant left a glove behind and again through a DNA match his involvement was ascertained in the offence. He was not arrested for it, however, until 25th May 2007.
6. Some days before that arrest the appellant committed a domestic burglary in North London. This offence occurred on 10th May 2007 and it was at the home of a retired couple. They left their home empty and secure at about 11.00 am on the morning of the offence and when they returned home in the afternoon they discovered that there had been a burglary. A satellite navigation system and a mobile telephone had been taken. The conservatory door had been jemmied open and that is how entry had been gained. Again forensic evidence was found which led to the appellant being interviewed.
7. For this catalogue of offences the individual sentences imposed were as follows. The three offences of theft and one offence of attempted theft in Slough attracted sentences of eight months concurrent. For failing to surrender to his bail following those offences the judge imposed a term of one month. In relation to the theft of the television from the car in Luton, the judge imposed a sentence of eight months and for failing to surrender to bail following that offence a term of one month. For the theft from a car in Burnt Oak the judge imposed a sentence of three months and for the burglary of the dwelling-house the judge imposed a sentence of 15 months. All the sentences, save for those in respect of the offences in Slough, were ordered to run consecutively, hence the total of three years.
8. At the time the appellant committed the offences in Luton, Burnt Oak and in North London he was on bail and subject to a community order. When he committed all his offences he was subject to a community punishment order which he had not completed.
9. The appellant came before the Crown Court because he had been committed for sentence. At the time of his sentence before the Crown Court he asked for 17 further offences of theft and three offences of causing damage to be taken into consideration.
10. On the basis of the pre-sentence report available, the principal mitigation advanced was that the appellant had pleaded guilty. It could not be said that he had done so at the first opportunity in relation to some at least of the offences, not least because he had failed to surrender to his bail, but of course he was entitled to some reduction in the sentence on account of his guilty pleas.
11. The appellant was aged 29 at the time of sentencing. He had been convicted by courts on six occasions before his appearance at the Crown Court but he had never before been sentenced to imprisonment. The likelihood is that his offending was motivated by the need to obtain money or goods with a view to buying drugs.
12. As we have said, the only ground which is pressed before us is that a total term of three years was manifestly excessive. No complaint has been made or could be made about the principle of consecutive sentencing in this case. To repeat, the attack is made simply upon the total sentence.
13. Some assistance is derived by the appellant from prison reports which have been provided to this court which show that he is making good progress in prison and which therefore demonstrates that some of the negative things said about him in the pre-sentence report may not have been wholly accurate. Nonetheless, in our judgment the issue we have to address is whether or not the totality of this sentence was in truth manifestly excessive. We recognise that it was a first sentence of imprisonment, but given this escalating series of offences, coupled with a failure to surrender to bail on two occasions, we are not persuaded that the total is manifestly excessive. We accept that the sentence is at the upper end of the appropriate range, but in our judgment it is no more than that. In all the circumstances this appeal must be dismissed.