Thomas, R v

LORD JUSTICE BURNETT: The issue raised in these appeals is whether the sentencing judge accorded to these appellants sufficient credit for their guilty pleas.

On 25th July 2016, in the Crown Court at Blackfriars, the appellants each pleaded guilty to three counts of theft, contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Thomas was sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment concurrent on each of those counts. In addition, he committed those offences during the 18 month operational period of a suspended sentence of 4 months. The judge activated 3 months of that suspended sentence to run consecutively. In those circumstances Thomas received an overall sentence of 25 months' imprisonment. Brown received a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment on each of the three counts again to run concurrently. Forty-two days were ordered to count towards that sentence pursuant section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The indictment had also contained three counts of burglary however having pleaded guilty to the theft counts the prosecution did not proceed with the burglary matters.

The facts can be distilled within a very small compass. On three occasions, between December 2015 and May 2016, both of these appellants entered shops which sold telephone cards. Whilst one distracted the shopkeeper by asking to purchase a £10 Lycamobile card the other scooped up other property. The total value of the thefts was slightly less than £1,000.

Both appellants had very poor records indeed. In the light of that and the nature of the offending the judge, uncontroversially, explained that he would not sentence in accordance with the Definitive Guideline for theft. In the course of his sentencing remarks he indicated that he would accord each of these defendants 20% discount for their pleas. He did not explain why he had arrived at that figure.

The agreed position before us on the papers is that the appellants had offered to plead to these thefts at the earliest opportunity. That may well not have been apparent to the learned judge or fully explained to him.

Mr Heptonstall, who did not appear below, but who has settled a respondent's notice, points out that the discount identified by the judge might have reflected his view that a full discount should be withheld because the case against these appellants on the theft counts was overwhelming.

With respect, no such explanation appears in the sentencing remarks. Moreover although it is claimed from the material before us that the case against each of these appellants was strong, not least because there was CCTV footage available, in our judgment, it was not of the nature that would have justified withholding full credit on that account.

In our judgment, the early pleas offered by these appellants should have resulted in the full discount of one-third being given. In the case of Brown, the judge indicated that his starting point was 30 months' imprisonment, which he reduced by 20% to 24 months. The full discount would have reduced the sentence to 20 months. We allow that appeal, quash the three concurrent sentences of 24 months and substitute concurrent sentences of 20 months.

In Thomas' case, the judge indicated that he could distinguish between the two accused to some extent because Thomas had less serious previous convictions. It was for that reason that he arrived at a sentence of 22 months on each count before activating the suspended sentence in part. To reflect the thinking of the judge we allow that appeal and quash the three concurrent sentences of 22 months. We substitute concurrent sentences of 18 months. The activated suspended is unaffected with the result that the total sentence for Thomas is one of 21 months. The various ancillary orders made by the judge are unaffected.