Katie Woodfinden [2019] EWCA Crim 1792

Katie Ann Woodfinden [2019] EWCA Crim 1792 concerns an appeal against a sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment imposed in the Crown Court at Preston for theft from an employer.

Ms Woodfinden pleaded guilty on 1 May 2019 to theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 and was sentenced on 31 May 2019 to 28 months’ imprisonment. She appealed against sentence by leave of the single judge.

Ms Woodfinden was employed as financial controller for a small company called The Furniture Recycling Group from November 2016. In August 2017 irregularities came to light when a supplier contacted the Managing Director chasing payment. The records showed payment had been made, but further investigation revealed the money had been diverted into Ms Woodfinden’s bank account. This proved to be one of nine separate instances in which money ostensibly paid to legitimate suppliers had in fact been diverted by Ms Woodfinden to herself. The thefts occurred in February, April, May, June, July and August 2017, involving sums ranging between £2,800 and £4,700. The total agreed between prosecution and defence was slightly under £38,000. Ms Woodfinden had disguised the thefts by altering the accounts, enabling her to present masked documents when asked to show accounts to the Managing Director. When contacted whilst on holiday in Spain, she admitted over the telephone to her employer that she had taken money. She was subsequently interviewed by police but gave no comment answers.

The Recorder had the benefit of an impact statement from the Managing Director describing the personal hurt and distress caused by the breach of trust and how his attention had been diverted from the ordinary running of the business. By the time of sentence he considered the consequential loss to the business, resulting from his personal distress and inability to control the business as before, to be well in excess of £200,000, though this was not money stolen by Ms Woodfinden but consequential damage flowing from her conduct. The Recorder categorised the offence as Category 1A under the theft guideline, having regard to the substantial value to the company, the severe consequences to the director and company, the high level of inconvenience and consequential financial harm, and the emotional distress caused. He described it as a serious breach of trust continuing over a sustained period. Ms Woodfinden had been one of very few people with access to and responsibility for the business account, responsible for paying suppliers, and had begun stealing within about a month of starting employment. She had forged documents to disguise her dishonesty. The Recorder accepted that she had quickly admitted her conduct to the Managing Director once discovered and agreed he should contact the police, and that she pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. She was of previous good character, in her mid to late thirties, had obtained new employment by the time of sentence, and had stayed out of trouble in the intervening period. Testimonials were provided, particularly from her current employer who expressed complete trust and confidence in her despite being aware of her previous conduct and confirmed a job would be available on her release.

On appeal Miss Watson submitted that the sentence should have been suspended, that the Recorder failed properly to take into account prospects of rehabilitation and the fact this was Ms Woodfinden’s first custodial sentence, that the court was wrong to place reliance on the significant consequential loss set out in the victim impact statement which did not follow directly from the offending, and that there was compelling mitigation by way of character, remorse, personal circumstances, delay between investigation and sentence, and her having found employment and established herself as a trusted employee in that period.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Mrs Justice McGowan and Mr Justice Jeremy Baker, accepted the Recorder’s categorisation as Category 1A higher culpability. The court found that the features identified by the Recorder properly supported that categorisation: the substantial value to the company, the severe consequences to the director and company, the high level of inconvenience and consequential financial harm, and the emotional distress. The starting point for Category 1A, given the value of the theft, was three and a half years’ imprisonment with a range of two and a half to six years. There were aggravating features including the sustained period over which the thefts occurred and the steps taken to conceal them. The Recorder had given full credit for mitigating factors including personal background, positive good character and genuine remorse, taking a starting point of three and a half years and reducing it to give effect to those mitigating factors. The court rejected the submission that the sentence should have been suspended, emphasising that this was a sustained series of deliberate acts of dishonesty carried out irrespective of the risk to the business and in such a way as to cause severe consequential loss to the business and severe impact upon the Managing Director. The Recorder had been correct to take all those features into account and, balancing them in a carefully conducted sentencing exercise, to reach the total period of 28 months. The court found nothing wrong in principle or manifestly excessive in the imposition of that sentence.

In short, the appeal against a 28 month sentence for theft by a financial controller who systematically stole nearly £38,000 from her employer over a sustained period was dismissed, the Court of Appeal holding the categorisation as Category 1A and the sentence imposed to be correct.