Aaron Morris [2019] EWCA Crim 995

R v Aaron Morris [2019] EWCA Crim 995 concerned an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment imposed at Guildford Crown Court on 14 March 2019 following a guilty plea to handling stolen goods. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), comprising Lord Justice Gross, Mr Justice Goose and His Honour Judge Kinch QC, dismissed the application.

Mr Morris had pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods taken from a public house called The Limes in Merstham, Surrey on 24 October 2018. The stolen property included two or three flat-screen televisions, some nine bottles of Smirnoff Ice and about £120 in cash. The burglars were seen leaving and police investigation led to a search warrant at the applicant’s home. Two flat-screen televisions valued at about £1,000 were found there, along with bottles of Smirnoff Ice, all identified as coming from the burglary. Mr Morris provided a prepared statement denying involvement in the burglary but later put forward a basis of plea accepting that he unloaded the stolen property when the man responsible for the burglary arrived at his house. He did not wish to provide a name.

Mr Morris, aged 33, had 38 convictions for 80 offences. As a juvenile he had been dealt with for theft, robbery and burglary. Since turning 18, most of his offending related to acquisitive crime, though he had served two custodial sentences for supplying class A drugs. He had served terms of imprisonment ranging from two weeks to three years. He had also been made subject to suspended sentence orders and community orders with supervision and drug treatment requirements, none of which appeared to have reduced the frequency of his offending. Most recently, on 19 April 2018, he received a conditional discharge for shoplifting. On 22 May 2018, he appeared before Surrey magistrates for theft, threatening behaviour and breach of that conditional discharge, receiving a community order with a rehabilitation activity requirement. On 31 May 2018 he appeared again for a further theft committed two days earlier, breaching both the community order and the conditional discharge. Both orders were revoked and he received custodial sentences of a few weeks. On 7 December 2018 he appeared for shoplifting committed the day before and was sentenced to a 12-month community order with a rehabilitation activity requirement. On 29 January 2019, during the currency of that order, he was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment for three offences of possessing a bladed article committed in November 2018. The present offence had therefore been committed in the midst of an extended pattern of repeat offending.

In sentencing, the Recorder referred to Mr Morris’s extensive criminal history and the fact that he was in possession of the stolen property very shortly after the burglary. He referred to the Sentencing Council guideline for handling stolen goods and indicated he was prepared to deal with the matter on the basis that the stolen property was valued at no more than £1,000. That placed the offence at the bottom of Category 3 or the top of Category 4, where the indicative starting point before consideration of aggravating or mitigating features was some form of community order. However, given the aggravating features present in Mr Morris’s case, the Recorder said it was perfectly obvious that the indicated range of sentencing could not apply. He identified as aggravating features that the stolen goods were “extremely hot property”, that the applicant had an appalling and relevant antecedent history, and that he appeared to be addicted to cocaine and was determined to continue to offend by stealing to fund that addiction. He observed that having been granted bail with an electronically monitored curfew, the applicant had managed three days only before breaching the terms of that order and a few days later had been remanded into custody. He concluded there was an absolute necessity to go outside the range indicated by the guideline and that a custodial sentence of immediate effect was the only sentence. The sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment took into account at least 25 per cent credit, indicating a notional sentence after trial in the region of 16 months.

On appeal, it was argued that the Recorder was not justified in disregarding or going outside the guidelines and that the 12-month sentence was manifestly excessive. The thrust of the argument was that Mr Morris’s previous convictions, while relevant and numerous, could not justify such a significant departure from the indicative position in the sentencing guideline.

The Court of Appeal rejected those submissions. The court observed that while no defendant should be sentenced a second time for past offending, certain criminal records simply cannot be overlooked. Given the frequency and extent of Mr Morris’s relevant previous offending over a period of 20 years, the court could see no criticism of the approach taken by the Recorder, which was to regard the applicant’s record as a very highly aggravating factor which, along with the other matters he referred to, entitled him and indeed required him to move not just upwards within the range in the guideline but outside the indicated category for the offence. In those circumstances the criticisms made could not be sustained. There was nothing wrong in principle with the decision to impose a term of imprisonment and nothing excessive about the length.

The court added that it did not appear that the Recorder was referred to the definitive guideline on community offences and custodial sentencing. However, it was quite clear from his sentencing remarks that having decided on a sentence of under two years’ imprisonment he had the relevant criteria well in mind. In the light of Mr Morris’s offending history and his repeated failure to comply with court orders and supervision, the Recorder’s conclusion that this was an offence that could only be dealt with by an immediate sentence of imprisonment was unassailable and correct. In short, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the Recorder was justified in departing from the guideline range in the light of the applicant’s extensive and relevant criminal record and repeated breaches of court orders.