Rix, R v

MR JUSTICE RICHARDS: On 6th February 2004 at Norwich Crown Court, the applicant pleaded guilty to three offences for which he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Downes as follows: on a count of burglary, to 4 years' imprisonment; on a count of obtaining property by deception, to 12 months' imprisonment, and on a count of blackmail, to 6 years' imprisonment. All those sentences were expressed to be concurrent, therefore producing a total sentence of 6 years. He now renews an application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the Single Judge.

The facts of the offences are these. The complainant was a 34 year old man who had suffered from schizophrenia since university. He had lived independently in a flat since May 2002 and had recommenced his studies. On 15th July 2003 he went on holiday with his parents, leaving his property locked and secured. He returned on the evening of 31st July to find that his home had been broken into; a window had been broken in order to gain entry. There had been an untidy search of all the rooms and property to the value of £6,000 had been stolen. Also taken were personal items and private documents which indicated his medical difficulties. It was subsequently established that the burglary had been committed by the applicant who was a near neighbour of the complainant.

On 24th October 2003 the applicant applied for a credit card with documents containing financial details of the complainant and he succeeded in obtaining property to the value of £129.

On 14th November 2002 the complainant received a hand delivered letter, subsequently found to have been written by the applicant, demanding £800. The money was to be placed at a specified location by 6.00 pm that evening. The letter contained threats that the author would let people on the estate know that the complainant was a "schizo paedophile" - it also warned him not to contact the police. It stated that the money was wanted to enable the author to take his wife's ashes to Thailand. On 18th November another letter was sent stating that the author was disappointed with the complainant and giving him another chance to follow the same instructions by 6.00 pm that evening. The letter said that if he did not comply with the instructions, he would regret it.

The complainant contacted the police and the applicant was arrested at his home. In interview he made full admissions.

In the complainant's statement he said that the burglary had been a shattering blow to him and he was very shocked. He was left feeling anxious and unsafe and had to spend time with his parents. He was worried that his flat would be burgled again if he was not there. This resulted in him not leaving his home. He felt his stability had been destroyed, his concentration had been badly affected and he suffered from depression. He was also worried that he would be liable to pay the debt from use of the credit card and his identity would be used to obtain further credit or for other purposes. This exacerbated his feelings of instability and he could not sleep. It is right to note that he was subsequently informed that he would not be liable for the debt. He said that, when he received the blackmail letter, he realised it was from the burglar, who knew a lot about him. He was concerned and horrified by the allegations made against him and felt physically ill. He was aware of the effects that that sort of labelling could have. He found the effect of the blackmail particularly difficult to describe. He said that his earlier feelings were magnified ten-fold, compounded by the potential loss of his home if the threats had been carried out. He felt that he was losing hope of a happy and stable future. He could not believe that the burglar was a near neighbour. This affected his trust in others and the local community. He did not know what the future held for him. The events had a severe emotional affect on him and had affected his concentration so much that he was unable to carry out simple tasks. He had been unable to study and his education classes had suffered considerably.

The applicant was born in September 1950 and is therefore now aged 54. He had a total of 16 court appearances between 1969 and 1992, for a very large number of offences, including offences of dishonesty and drug offences. His longest custodial sentence had been one of 3 years' imprisonment, in 1974. He had succeeded in keeping out of trouble, however, since 1992. The pre-sentence report described him as having a troubled background and indicated that much of his earlier offending had been drug related. He had settled down in the 1990s with a wife and son but suffered the grave misfortune that they were killed in a car crash. At the time of these new offences the applicant had fallen back into his old ways and was taking drugs and was abusing alcohol.

It is apparent that the offences were motivated by the suspicion that the complainant was a paedophile and there was a premeditated decision to break into the flat to look for evidence. According to the pre-sentence report, the applicant continued to maintain his initial suspicions about the complainant and the report expressed a concern about lack of remorse on the part of the applicant. We are told, however, that by the time of sentencing the applicant had acknowledged that what he was saying was totally baseless and that he was by then remorseful and had indeed written to the complainant. This was accepted by the sentencing judge.

One other matter to which we should refer is that the pre-sentence report stated that it was to the credit of the applicant that he had used his time on remand in a constructive way by withdrawing from drugs and alcohol and contacting those who would be able to assist him in putting himself onto a more stable basis for the future. There was also a psychiatric report but it does not add anything material for present purposes.

In sentencing the applicant the judge stressed the vulnerability of the complainant, his victim, and the impact that the offences had had upon him. He referred to the deliberate targeting of the victim and said that he proposed to treat the burglary and credit card offences as aggravating features of the blackmail.

Mr Du Feu, on the applicant's behalf, has made commendably succinct and well presented submissions to this Court, stressing five points in the applicant's favour. First, that he made full admissions in interview and entered pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity. Secondly, that he had shown remorse, as we have already indicated. Thirdly, that there was the long gap of some 12 years in his offending between 1992 and the present offences. Fourthly, the personal circumstances of the applicant, including, in particular, the loss of his wife and son, to which we have also referred. Finally, the applicant's constructive attitude as attested to in the pre-sentence report. Having regard to those matters in particular, Mr Du Feu submits that a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment was simply too long.

As was said in R v Davis [2004] 1 Cr App R(S) 31, one of the authorities to which Mr Du Feu referred in his written submissions, the gravity of the offences of blackmail varies considerably according to the circumstances. Here, the deliberate targeting of a highly vulnerable victim made it a particularly serious offence. The effect of the burglary and credit card offences was seriously destabilising. The additional effects of the blackmail offence were plainly traumatic. Even though the allegation of paedophilia had no truth in it, the threat to inform the neighbours had a devastating effect on the victim's confidence and ability to cope with life. In view of his psychiatric condition, this is entirely understandable and was a readily foreseeable consequence of the applicant's conduct in blackmailing him.

Having regard to those considerations, and the totality of the offending in this case, we are in agreement with the Single Judge that a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment, although stern, could not be said to have been manifestly excessive. The renewed application is therefore refused.