Aaron Morris [2019] EWCA Crim 995

The applicant pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. He handled televisions and alcohol stolen from a pub saying that he had unloaded the stolen property when the burglar had attended his home address.

The judge referred to the applicant’s extensive criminal history when sentencing him and the fact the property was handled very shortly after the burglary. He went on to say, “given the aggravating features in present in the applicants case … it was … perfectly obvious that the indicated range of sentencing could not apply to the applicant.” He had also breached a bail curfew within days of it being imposed and was remanded in custody, was addicted to cocaine and “determined to continue to offend by stealing in order to fund that addiction.” His conclusion was that there was an “absolute necessity” for the court to go outside of the indicated range. The submission on appeal was that the judge was not justified in disregarding or going outside the guidelines.

Held: criminal records cannot be overlooked, given the frequency and extent of the applicant’s relevant previous offending over a period of 20 years there could be no criticism of the approach taken by the judge. He regarded the convictions as a very highly aggravating feature, which along with other matters he referred to entitled him, “indeed required him”, to move not just upwards but outside the range.  There was nothing wrong in principle with the decision to impose a term of imprisonment and nothing excessive about the length.