England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		11 June 2008

Wednesday 11 June 2008

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I will ask His Honour Judge Moss QC to give the judgment of the court.

HIS HONOUR JUDGE MOSS:

1. On 24 January 2008, in the Crown Court at Blackfriars, the appellant, who is aged 29, pleaded guilty to an offence of burglary (count 1) and to an offence of common assault (count 2). On 28 February 2008 he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Marron QC to two years and eight months' imprisonment on count 1 and to four months' imprisonment, consecutive, on count 2, making a sentence of three years' imprisonment in all. He appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.
2. On 12 March 2007 "K" was picked up from school by her mother. It was her fourteenth birthday. She was dropped outside her home and her mother left to collect her youngest son. K went inside. A few minutes later she answered a knock at the door and found the appellant there. He entered the premises without invitation, closed the door and then went into the kitchen. K had never met or seen him before. She tried to deter him by saying that her mother would be home soon. She continually asked him to leave, but he did not. He went to the kitchen and got himself a drink. K attempted to use the telephone to contact her mother. The appellant pulled the telephone from her hands. K fell over and began to cry. The appellant put his hand over her mouth and said that he simply wanted to talk. He asked her to stop crying and to stop screaming. K continued to ask the appellant to leave, but he did not. At some stage he picked up a knife and said that he was going to kill himself. It is right to say that no threats were made with that knife towards K. Eventually he left the premises. The only thing that he took with him was a banana.
3. The police were contacted. In due course the appellant's DNA was recovered from a cup that he had used. On 12 October 2007 he was arrested. When interviewed he initially denied any knowledge of the matter or of the premises. He was taken to the outside of the address in question to ensure that there was no confusion. When re-interviewed he fully admitted the offence. He claimed to have been suffering from the effects of drug addiction at the time. He conceded that he had snatched the telephone from K and that he had put his hand over her mouth.
4. In a victim impact statement dated 14 October 2007 the complainant's mother indicated that the impact of the incident had been serious and long-lasting. K had been tearful and had problems sleeping. She stated:

"The knowledge that a stranger was walking around our house, could threaten my daughter, stop her from contacting me, could put his hands around her throat and over her mouth to stop her shouting for help, leaves us frightened for the safety of our children, even when they are in their own home, and very angry."

This court is hardly surprised by those sentiments.

5. A basis of plea which was provided was accepted by the Crown. It was factually very little different to the facts that we have set out.
6. It is submitted on the appellant's behalf that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive by reference both to the term imposed for burglary and to the consecutive sentence for common assault -- an offence which, it is said, was part and parcel of the circumstances of the burglary offence. The appellant was of good character at the time of the offence, although he has since committed an offence of theft, for which he was fined £100.
7. This is on any view an unusual case on its facts. The gravity of the offences lies in the terrifying ordeal to which a 14 year old girl was subjected in her own home. When she tried to telephone her mother for help, the telephone was pulled from her grasp. When she screamed, the appellant put his hand over her mouth. He picked up a knife -- in itself a terrifying development for the child -- and threatened to kill himself with it.
8. In our judgment this case is serious and unpleasant. A total punishment of three years' imprisonment, even following a plea of guilty, although severe, cannot in our judgment be said to be manifestly excessive. In those circumstances this appeal is dismissed.