Neutral Citation Number:[2018] EWCA Crim 1511
Case No: 201704628/A2 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: Wednesday, 13 June 2018
 
B e f o r e:

LADY JUSTICE MACUR 

MR JUSTICE GOOSE 

THE RECORDER OF AMERSHAM 
HER HONOUR JUDGE CUTTS QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

R E G I N A 
v 
MARCIA MURRAY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Epiq Europe Ltd 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr M Stevens appeared on behalf of the Appellant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T (Approved)
1.	MR JUSTICE GOOSE:  On 7 July 2017 in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames, the appellant Marcia Murray, who is now aged 50, was convicted after trial of two offences of burglary and an offence of common assault.  Sentencing was adjourned.  Subsequently, the appellant pleaded guilty to three further indictments charging her with further offences of burglary, to which she had pleaded guilty.  
2.	On 29 September 2017 Mr Recorder Kingston, the trial judge, sentenced the appellant to five years' imprisonment made up as follows.  Indictment T20160616 being two offences of burglary and one offence of common assault, 15 months' imprisonment on each burglary count, consecutive with each other, and no separate penalty on the common assault.  On indictment T20170141 for an offence of burglary, 10 months' imprisonment consecutive.  On indictment T20170352, a further offence of burglary, 10 months' imprisonment consecutive.  On indictment T20170538, two offences of burglary, 10 months' imprisonment on each count concurrently with each other but consecutively with other sentences.  
3.	The appellant appeals the sentences imposed with leave of the single judge on the grounds that the total sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.  Further, it is argued that the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the principle of totality.
4.	The background to these offences is based upon the appellant's antecedent history.  At the age of 50 the appellant has 20 convictions for 68 offences, almost entirely for offences of theft or fraud.  She has six previous offences of dwelling‑house burglary and 16 previous offences for non‑dwelling burglaries, also with an attempted non‑dwelling burglary.  
5.	On 25 September 2015 the appellant was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment for six offences of non‑dwelling burglaries and an offence of theft.  In addition, a suspended sentence of 12 weeks' imprisonment for similar offences was activated consecutively.  Accordingly the appellant was serving the balance of this sentence on licence at the time she committed the offences with which this appeal is concerned.
6.	The facts of these current offences can be shortly stated.  The first offence in time was the burglary offence under indictment T20170141.  On 28 August 2016, shortly after the appellant's release from her sentence of imprisonment imposed on 25 September 2015 and whilst on licence, the appellant entered a hospital and stole seven laptop computers valued at £1,000 each.  She was recognised from CCTV recordings, having committed previous offences in the hospital, but was not arrested until 11 November 2016.  She was released on bail.  
7.	Whilst on bail and on licence the appellant committed two further burglaries and the common assault which comprised indictment T20160616.  On 6 October 2016 the appellant entered school premises in Battersea and stole a purse and an iPhone from a teacher.  The appellant was identified on CCTV recordings but was not arrested before committing further offences.  On 18 November 2016 the appellant returned to the same school and gained entry by pretending to be the mother of one of the pupils.  A member of staff identified the appellant and confronted her.  As the appellant began to leave another member of staff tried to stop the appellant.  That member of staff was struck across the face in an offence of common assault.  The appellant was arrested and again granted bail.  
8.	On 21 March 2017, again whilst on bail and on licence, the appellant committed a further offence of burglary comprising indictment T20170352.  On this occasion the appellant entered a building at Imperial College and stole an Apple Mac laptop computer valued at £750 belonging to a medical student.  She was identified on CCTV recordings.  
9.	Finally, the two offences of burglary on indictment T20170538 were committed in the Chemistry Building of Imperial College on 5 May 2017.  The appellant entered the premises and stole a Lenovo laptop computer valued at £1,000 and, in a separate offence, an Apple laptop computer valued at £1,400.  The appellant was subsequently arrested when she returned to the building on 2 June 2017.
10.	Passing sentence, the Recorder assessed these burglaries as involving high culpability, because they were deliberate targeting of hospitals, schools or university premises and a significant degree of planning, especially by returning to the same premises where she knew items were available which she could steal.  The Recorder also identified that the harm caused was of a significant degree, given the value of the items stolen, but finding that the burglary offences under the non‑dwelling guideline were at the borderline of Categories 1 and 2.  The aggravating features of these offences were also identified by the Recorder, including the appellant's previous convictions for similar offences, the fact that these offences were committed whilst she was on licence and also that she was on bail.  Taking into account these aggravating factors and adjusting for mitigation, the Recorder adopted a sentence after trial of 18 months' custody, which he then discounted to 15 months in respect of totality.  Thereafter the Recorder further discounted the sentences to reflect the pleas of guilty where they were entered.  The Recorder also directed that the burglary offences on the final indictment (T20170538) were to be served concurrently with each other, but all other sentences were to be served consecutively.  This provided a total sentence of five years' imprisonment.
11.	We have considered carefully the submissions made on behalf of the appellant which are addressed directly to the total sentence.  No real criticism is made of the individual sentences or upon the reasoning adopted by the Recorder.  Indeed we are satisfied that the individual sentences were entirely correct.  Further, it was also necessary, given that the appellant was on bail when she committed the offences on three of the indictments, to impose consecutive sentencing.  However, we do not consider that it was appropriate to impose consecutive sentencing for the two burglaries on the indictment T20160616.  The appellant had not been arrested and was not on bail after committing the first offence before she committed the second and the assault offence.  The sentences for these offences should, in our judgment, have been concurrent with each other, as the Recorder correctly did so in the final indictment T20170538.  For this reason, but also to reflect to a slightly greater extent the principle of totality, we vary the sentences on indictment T20160616 so as to make each sentence concurrent with each other on that indictment, all other sentences remaining as before.  This will mean therefore, that the sentence to be served on indictment T20160616 will be 15 months' imprisonment which, taken with the consecutive sentences on the remaining indictments, provides a total sentence of 45 months' imprisonment.  
12.	Accordingly, we allow the appeal against sentence and reduce the sentence to 15 months' imprisonment on indictment T20160616 and the total sentence to 45 months' imprisonment.  
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. 
Email:  Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk