[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 >> Gharib, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1257 (06 May 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1257.html Cite as: [2011] EWCA Crim 1257

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		6 May 2011

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I shall ask His Honour Judge Goldstone QC to give the judgment of the court.

HIS HONOUR JUDGE GOLDSTONE:

1. The appellant is aged 41. He has no previous convictions. On 16 February 2011, in the Crown Court at Southwark, following his earlier convictions of eleven counts of handling stolen goods, he was sentenced by Her Honour Judge Taylor to twelve months' imprisonment. He appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.
2. His convictions arise out of the following circumstances. On 18 February 2009 police officers executed a search warrant at shop premises on the Edgware Road in London. At those premises the appellant owned a counter from where he operated as a business known as "Class London". He sold electrical equipment including iPods, iPhones and mobile telephones.
3. From the boot of the appellant's car parked nearby police officers also seized four laptops. It transpired that seven iPhones in the shop and the four laptops had all been purchased within the previous month via the unauthorised use of credit cards. The total value of the goods stolen was just in excess of £8,000.
4. When the appellant was interviewed he asserted that he had paid £5,000 for the computers and denied that he was dealing in stolen goods.
5. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that, having regard to his age and previous good character and the guideline case of R v Webbe [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 22, the sentence of twelve months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
6. At the outset of her submissions Miss Jones wisely abandoned her original arguments advanced on the appellant's behalf either that the sentence of imprisonment was wrong in principle or that it should have been suspended.
7. We accept that for a man of good character the handling of stolen goods whose value is less than £10,000 may not cross the custody threshold unless such handling bears the hallmarks of sophistication. In this case over a period of four weeks the appellant had become what is sometimes referred to as a "fence". He must, for whatever reason and by whatever means, have become trusted by at least two thieves to have been able to buy recently stolen goods for onward sale in his business. That in our judgment is precisely a type of sophistication which the court in Webbe had in mind when giving an example of the sort of case in which the handling of stolen goods worth less than £10,000 might well cross the custody threshold. We note, and regard as a factor which supports our interpretation of "sophistication", the proximity in time between the thefts and the handling. We disagree with Miss Jones' written submission that geographical proximity is more relevant than temporal proximity. Thieves need to be able to move their goods speedily. Far more important to them than the location of their outlet in relation to where the thefts occurred is the speed at which those goods can be moved on. We therefore endorse Miss Jones' concession and conclude, without reservation, that this case crossed the custody threshold and that, despite the fact that a twelve month sentence could in law have been suspended, an immediate sentence of imprisonment was not wrong in principle.
8. We move on to ask ourselves whether of a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The starting point of Miss Jones' submissions is that, having regard to the second bracket in Webbe that twelve months is the appropriate starting point where goods exceed a value of £10,000, this sentence should for those reasons have been less.
9. We consider that in cases such as this, where the custody threshold is crossed and where the appellant is dealing in stolen goods in his business, an element of deterrence is required. Those who handle stolen goods either as a business or as a part of their business must realise that if they are caught they will face salutary punishment. If they know that, they will be less likely to say "Yes" when approached by thieves to buy and move on their stolen property.
10. Despite the powerful mitigation available to the appellant, which does not, it must be emphasised, include remorse or an acknowledgement of guilt, we do not regard a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment in total as manifestly excessive. This appeal will therefore be dismissed.

_______________________________________