Charles Matthews [2019] EWCA Crim 1420

The appellant was convicted of handling stolen goods and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. He had a scrap metal dealer business, and the proceeds from a high-end jewellery store burglary were found at his premises, valued around £82,000.

The sentencing judge took the view that he was a professional handler for the purpose of the guidelines. He had bought just over one-tenth of the total quantity stolen and had equipment in his offence for the valuation of jewellery.

There were two grounds of appeal; the first was that the sentence was excessive as the relevant guideline was not properly applied, and the judge did not notify counsel she intended to depart from it. The second that it was wrong to disqualify him as a company director for 10 years. It was argued the judge confused the professional character of the burglary with the nature of the appellant’s actions and double-counted the value of the goods.

Held: there was no evidence the appellant made handling stolen goods his livelihood, but he was aware they were high-value items. His supplier knew to approach him, and he calculated he could make a profit, as supported by the paraphernalia at his premises. This was a sophisticated professional offence but going out of the category rage was wrong in principle. The right sentence was 3 years and 6 months. On the disqualification issue, the argument was accepted that there was no connection between the offence and the appellant’s activities as a company director, and he had not abused his position. The fact the items were hidden on company premises did not constitute the relevant nexus. The disqualification order was quashed.