Arthur Gaskin [2019] EWCA Crim 1048

R v Arthur Gaskin [2019] EWCA Crim 1048 was an appeal against sentence heard by the Court of Appeal (Spencer J and HHJ Picton) which was dismissed.

Mr Gaskin was convicted by a jury on 8 November 2018 in the Crown Court at Nottingham of two offences of domestic burglary. He was also committed for sentence for a further offence of burglary with intent to steal from a non-dwelling. HHJ Burgess imposed concurrent terms of seven years’ imprisonment for each domestic burglary and eight months concurrent for the non-domestic burglary.

The domestic burglaries targeted elderly victims in their own homes in December 2016. In the first offence, Mr Gaskin and another male arrived at the home of Mr Peter Pickering, aged 85, posing as roofers. They convinced him that roofing work was needed and charged him £2,800 in cash. Whilst one man took Mr Pickering outside to show him the supposed work, the other remained inside. After they left, Mr Pickering discovered that his bedroom safe had been broken into and approximately £12,000 in cash stolen, along with jewellery and other small sums of cash. The second victim was Mr Henry Greengrass, aged 91. Two weeks before the burglary two men had replaced ridge tiles at his Keyworth home, during which they observed him take cash from a tin in his bedroom cupboard. On 12 December 2016 at about 8.20 pm, Mr Greengrass disturbed a male in his bedroom whom he recognised as one of the earlier roofers. The intruder fled, dropping his mobile phone. £3,000 had been stolen from the tin along with identity documents and costume jewellery. Analysis of the dropped phone established Mr Gaskin as the user, with his fingerprint on it. Cell site evidence placed him in the vicinity of both burglaries. The third offence occurred on 1 July 2017 at a farm in Cranswick, East Yorkshire. A farmer became suspicious of a car driving around his yard. The driver, later identified as Mr Gaskin through a photograph taken at the scene, was found emerging from a shed and claimed to be a gamekeeper looking for work. He drove off after being confronted. Mr Gaskin had an extensive record for dishonesty, including an 18-month sentence in 2007 for conspiracy to steal and seven years’ imprisonment in 2010 for conspiracy to handle stolen goods and concealing or converting criminal property.

The judge sentenced Mr Gaskin immediately after the jury’s verdict without a pre-sentence report, regarding a substantial custodial sentence as inevitable. It was common ground that each burglary fell within category 1 of the Sentencing Council Guideline. The judge found that there had been reconnaissance to identify vulnerable victims and that in the second offence the victim had been confronted in his bedroom. He described them as very serious offences involving planning, distraction and the theft of large sums. The judge noted Mr Gaskin’s previous record involved distraction thefts from vulnerable people. The judge acknowledged the lengthy delay in bringing the case to trial, observing that the offences were committed in December 2016 but trial did not occur until nearly two years later whilst Mr Gaskin was on bail with a qualifying curfew. However, the judge observed that if Mr Gaskin had admitted the offences they could have been dealt with sooner. The judge stated that he would pass concurrent sentences but they would reflect the fact that there were two offences. He acknowledged the farm burglary was committed whilst on bail but applied the totality principle by making that sentence concurrent.

Mr Gaskin appealed by leave of the Single Judge on grounds that the judge failed to have sufficient regard to the delay, failed to account for personal mitigation, and most substantially failed to apply the totality principle properly. Mr Elwick acknowledged that each burglary fell within category 1 with a starting point of three years but submitted that no substantial increase beyond that was appropriate. He argued that the judge had simply added two sentences of three-and-a-half years together to reach seven years, which was too long.

The Court of Appeal rejected these submissions. Spencer J emphasised that these were very serious offences of their kind, with elderly vulnerable victims targeted in their own homes. The offences were planned and substantial sums stolen. The elder victim had been confronted by Mr Gaskin. There were multiple factors of culpability and harm which justified significant uplift from the three-year starting point before considering aggravating factors. There was an aggravating factor of Mr Gaskin’s bad record for both offences and an additional factor for count 2 that it was committed at night. The court noted that the category 1 range extended up to six years and that each offence taken alone could easily have justified four to five years. The judge was correct in principle to pass concurrent sentences reflecting the overall criminality of both burglaries. A consecutive sentence would have been justified for the non-domestic burglary committed on bail, but the judge properly observed totality by making it concurrent. The judge, having presided over the trial, was ideally placed to assess culpability, harm and overall seriousness. The sentence of seven years was properly and necessarily severe and was just and proportionate. In short, the appeal was dismissed, the Court of Appeal finding that the concurrent seven-year sentences properly reflected the overall criminality of the offending and were not manifestly excessive.