Davies [2019] EWCA Crim 879

The offender pleaded guilty to a dwelling house burglary, four offences of fraud and one of possession of diamorphine. He was sentenced to 876 days imprisonment for the burglary with 28 days concurrent for all other offences. The Attorney General applied to refer the sentence as one that was unduly lenient.

The offender had entered a property when the occupants were asleep taking money and their passports, this caused a great deal of disruption as they were due to go on holiday the following day. A card taken was used for a number of contactless payments, the offender initially denied the burglary stating he had found the purse with the bankcard. He was subject to the minimum sentencing regime pursuant to s111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and had been sentenced under those provisions previously.

The sentencing judge arrived at the sentence by giving the offender 20% credit for his guilty plea, entered at the plea and trial preparation hearing, although indicated as probable at the Magistrates’ Court.

The sentence was unduly lenient, the aggravating features were not sufficiently factored into the eventual sentence. Those factors being that the occupiers were at home, the offence was at night, the property stolen caused economic loss and inconvenience, he was a recidivist burglar with a substantial record and was on licence for a previous dwelling burglary. The sentence for burglary was quashed and a sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment substituted.