England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		9 July 2008

1. THE RECORDER OF NOTTINGHAM: On 6th November 2007 this applicant was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment suspended for two years for burglary of a restaurant and attempted burglary of a dwelling-house. Twelve days later he committed the first offence which brought him back before the Crown Court at Leeds when he was sentenced on 24th January 2008 by His Honour Judge MacGill as follows. For an offence of theft committed on 17th November 2007, six months' imprisonment. For having a bladed article upon his arrest for that offence, to three months to run consecutively. For a further offence of theft committed eight days later, after he had been bailed, nine months' imprisonment to run consecutively, making a total of 18 months. The learned judge plainly had regard to some of the submissions made on behalf of this applicant because in bringing into force the suspended sentence he reduced it from 10 months to six months and ordered it to run consecutively, making a total sentence for this applicant of two years' imprisonment. We should add that he asked the court to take into consideration 89 other offences, largely of stealing from shops.
2. He is 27 years of age. He has a longstanding drug addiction. He has 48 previous convictions for 74 offences mainly, but not exclusively, of stealing from shops and similar establishments. He is in short a persistent thief.
3. He was refused leave to appeal by Silber J in fairly strong terms. Indeed the learned single judge indicated that he considered this application to be misconceived.
4. The first offence of theft committed on 17th November, very shortly after he received the suspended sentence, involved his stealing from a shop in the Merion Centre in Leeds where he went off with two head sets valued at £50. He was spotted by the security guard. Although he is a persistent thief he seems to be rather incompetent. The security guard and he engaged in a short struggle and he wriggled free. The police were alerted and he was apprehended at a bus stop. There was then a brief struggle with the arresting officer and a kitchen knife was found in his back pocket. In interview he admitted both the theft and possessing the bladed article. He asserted, as do many caught with knives, that he had it with him for his protection and had no intention of using it. He was then released on bail.
5. Eight days later he committed a further offence of theft on 25th November last. He went to a nightclub called the New Bar and was spotted by a doorman in possession of something under his shirt. He dropped it. It turned out to be a lady's bag. He lied and said it belonged to his girlfriend. The details within the bag did not match the information he proffered. The police were called and he was arrested. In interview he denied that he had stolen the bag. He pleaded guilty before the magistrates on 21st December. He was remanded in custody following his second arrest.
6. As we have indicated, he was in breach of a suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed for an attempted burglary of a dwelling-house when he tried to force a panel in a glass door to gain entry but failed, and for burgling a restaurant where he smashed a window to get in, removed the till and the float inside it and escaped through the fire exit.
7. There was a probation report before the court which viewed this applicant with some sympathy and observed that the suspended sentence had perhaps not had time to bite owing to a disagreement with another resident at a hostel which he therefore left.
8. We have listened with care to counsel's submissions on behalf of this applicant but like the single judge we have concluded that this application is misconceived. As the learned judge said when he passed sentence upon this applicant:

"... there is only one thing [that] protects the public, and that is when you are locked up quite frankly, and I think there comes a time, and today is the day, when your sad background just does not count any more."

In our judgment the sentences passed by the learned judge are quite unimpeachable. His decision to make the sentences run consecutively was appropriate in all the circumstances. This application is accordingly refused.