R v Daniel Lloyd & Anor

On 8 March 2024, in the Crown Court at Derby, the first appellant, Daniel Lloyd (then aged 32), at a plea and trial preparation hearing just four days before his trial, changed his plea to guilty to one count of burglary of a dwelling (count 1), two counts of attempted burglary of a dwelling (counts 5 and 6), and one count of dangerous driving (count 7). Other counts that he had been facing on that indictment were later ordered to lie on the file.

Lloyd had been due to stand trial in the Crown Court at Derby together with the second appellant, Layton Doran, and another man, Marcus Lawrence, on 12 March 2024. That trial was, however, adjourned to 29 August 2024, on which occasion, before the jury was sworn, Doran pleaded guilty to one count of attempted burglary of a dwelling (count 6) and one count of aggravated vehicle taking (count 8).

On 29 February 2024, at the Magistrates' Court, the appellants' co-defendant, Lawrence, had pleaded guilty of, and had been committed to the Crown Court for sentence in relation to:

On 13 January 2025, in the Crown Court at Derby, HHJ Martin Hurst sentenced the two appellants and Lawrence for these offences.

The judge sentenced Lloyd as follows:

The total sentence imposed on Lloyd was, therefore, one of 11 years' imprisonment. In addition, he was disqualified from driving for seven years and six months, comprising a disqualification period of two years and an extension period of five years and six months, and until he had passed an extended driving test.

The judge sentenced Doran follows:

The total sentence imposed on Doran was, therefore, one of six years and five months' imprisonment. In addition, he was disqualified from driving for four years and eight and a half months, comprising a disqualification period of 18 months and an extension period of three years and two and a half months.

Each of the appellants appeals against his sentence with the leave of the single judge. Each is represented at this appeal by his counsel at the sentencing hearing, namely, Ms Lesley Pidcock for Lloyd and Mr Gurdit Singh for Doran.

The offences on counts 1 and 5 occurred in the early hours of 28 August 2023.

In relation to count 1, the complainant, Mrs Louise Carberry was at home with her husband and their young son on the evening of 27 August 2023. She had parked her Volkswagen Golf estate car at the rear of her address on a private road. The house was secured and locked when she went to bed at around midnight. Mrs Carberry was disturbed between 1.00am and 2.00 am by a sound in her dining room, before she heard a door opening. She assumed that the sound had been made by her son, and she went back to sleep. Later that morning, at about 9.30 am, she found that the back door to her property had been tampered with. The previously closed dining room door had been left ajar, and the back door chain had been removed. Her husband looked out of the window and noticed that the car was missing. The car was worth around £36,000, having been bought in June 2020. The keys to the vehicle had also been stolen, having been taken from a wooden box in the hallway. The police attended and discovered that the back gate to the property had been opened and that the barrel of the lock on the back door had been taken out.

In relation to count 5, the complainant, Mrs Susan Kempley went to bed at around 10.30pm on 27 August 2023, having secured her house. She was disturbed at around 2.25am by her dog barking. She got up and went downstairs, where she found that the lock to the patio door in the kitchen had been burnt and was hanging off. She immediately contacted a neighbour. The neighbours supplied her with Ring doorbell footage that showed a Volkswagen Golf estate going past the address and two people walking up the side of her house. One was the appellant Lloyd. The Volkswagen Golf estate was the vehicle that had been stolen from Mrs Carberry earlier that morning.

In relation to count 6, on the evening of 26 September 2023 (about one month after the offences charged in counts 1 and 5), the complainant, Ms Kelly Easto, was in the kitchen at her home address with her partner. They were watching television when, just before 11.00pm, her son's baby monitor beeped. That caused Ms Easto to check her phone, where she saw notifications from her house CCTV camera. When she opened her CCTV app, she saw two persons wearing balaclavas in her back garden. One of them was wearing a rucksack type bag on his back, while the other was wearing a cross-body bag. The two were the appellant Lloyd and his co-defendant Lawrence.

Ms Easto saw one of the men trying to gain access to the back door of her address, and then saw them leave at about 11.00pm. She rang 999 and reported the incident to the police.

Doran was linked to this offence by DNA evidence and further CCTV evidence. It was the prosecution's case that he acted as a lookout. He was seen to flee a nearby address a short time later with Lawrence. The police later recovered clothing and a balaclava that had been abandoned nearby and which they were able to link forensically to Doran.

In relation to counts 7 and 8, on that same evening, 26 September 2023, about 10 minutes after the offence on count 6, police officers were on patrol in the Chesterfield area looking for the stolen Volkswagen Golf estate. They located it and noted that it was displaying cloned plates. Lloyd was driving the car and Doran and Larence were passengers.

The officers followed the car around a roundabout that had a closed exit, with a barrier and cones placed across it. Lloyd drove straight through the barrier and "Closed" sign , scattering the barrier and the cones across the road. The pursuing officer activated his emergency lights, but Lloyd did not stop. Another officer was able to deploy a stinger just ahead of the vehicle, deflating both nearside tyres, but Lloyd swerved left, mounted the pavement and, although he attempted to evade the static marked police vehicle, he collided with it, He then continued to drive along the road at speed in the direction of the roundabout with the B6150, with several police cars in pursuit.

Eventually, Lloyd stopped the car, and the police saw the three men fleeing from it. The dangerous driving had lasted for a matter of minutes. The car and the surrounding area were searched. The police recovered balaclavas containing the DNA of the appellants and their co-defendant. They also found some gloves and a signal jammer, which had been used to block the signals generated by mobile phones and the car's GPS tracker. In addition, they found an electric drill, a blow torch, a screwdriver, bolt cutters, overshoes, various number plates and cannisters of butane.

Lloyd was arrested the following day, on 27 September 2023. He was wearing clothing that matched what he had been seen wearing in the CCTV footage. When he was interviewed by police, Lloyd largely refused to answers questions put to him, although he made some partial responses essentially denying involvement.

Doran was arrested in Stockport on 4 December 2023. In his police interview, Doran provided a prepared statement and thereafter answered "no comment" to all questions asked.

Lloyd had 20 previous convictions for 27 offences, including driving offences. The principal relevant previous conviction was for conspiracy to commit domestic burglary in 2018, for which he received a total sentence of six years and eight months' custody. One of his co-defendants in relation to that conspiracy was Doran. Lloyd was released from that sentence on 19 July 2023, having been previously recalled. He committed the first of the offences with which we are concerned very soon after his release. He had convictions for non-domestic burglaries in 2015 and for numerous other offences of dishonesty. At the time of this offending, he was on licence.

Doran had 10 previous convictions for 21 offences, including driving offences, burglary of a dwelling, and the 2018 conspiracy to commit domestic burglary to which we have already referred. On that occasion, in view of his age, he was given a two-year detention and training order. Since then, he had committed another domestic burglary. The judge on this occasion remarked that he would have been a "third strike" burglar had count 6 been a completed offence, rather than an attempt. Doran had been sentenced to 32 months' imprisonment for his prior domestic burglary, was released at the end of 2022, and was therefore on licence at the time of this offending.

The sentencing hearing commenced on 9 January 2025, with the judge hearing the prosecution opening of the facts and submissions in mitigation made by counsel on behalf of each appellant. The hearing was then adjourned until 13 January 2025 for the pronouncement of sentence.

At the sentencing hearing, the judge had the benefit of: a pre-sentence report dated 29 October 2024 in relation to Doran; a victim personal statement from Ms Easto (the complainant in relation to count 6); a letter from Lloyd to the court; a character reference in relation to Doran; a prepared statement given at the time of his police interview; and a sentencing note prepared by the prosecution.

The judge noted that all three of the defendants he was then sentencing had substantial relevant previous convictions and that they were "all experienced, determined, professional burglars", as evidenced not only by their previous offending history, but also having regard to the extensive burglary paraphernalia recovered when the car was stopped.

The judge found that the count 1 burglary fell within category A1 of the relevant Sentencing Council guideline because there was significant planning and organisation and because the victims were at home. The judge found that the attempted burglary offences on counts 5 and 6 also fell within category A1 for the same reasons. In relation to count 1, the harm was increased by the theft of a high-value vehicle. In relation to count 6, the harm was increased by the substantial impact of the offence on Ms Easto and her family, as set out in her victim personal statement.

The judge noted that the starting point for a category A1 domestic burglary was three years' custody, with a category range of two to six years' custody. The aggravating features in relation to each appellant were their previous convictions, and the fact that the offences were committed at night, while on licence, and as part of a group. An additional aggravating feature in relation to count 6 was that there was a child in the house.

The judge rejected the submission made by the prosecution that there should be a discount on the sentences for counts 5 and 6, due to those being attempts rather than completed offences. The judge noted that count 6 concerned both appellants and their co-defendant, and was the principal offence committed by both Doran and Lloyd. All three had been "clearly disturbed by the fact that the occupants were at home and did not voluntarily desist, but realised it was getting too difficult and you were going to be detected". Accordingly, no discount was justified.

The judge considered that Lloyd's offence of dangerous driving (count 7) fell into category A1 of the relevant Sentencing Council guideline, given that there was a police chase; that Lloyd had sought to evade the police; and that damage was caused to the Volkswagen Golf estate that he was driving and to a police vehicle. The judge noted that the starting point for sentence was therefore 18 months' custody, with a category range of 12 to 24 months' custody, as well as an obligatory disqualification for 12 months and a requirement for an extended driving test.

The judge noted that in relation to count 8 (aggravated vehicle taking) there was no Sentencing Council guideline. The statutory maximum was two years' custody. Disqualification for at least two years was required. He noted that the imposition of a requirement for an extended driving test was a matter for his discretion.

The judge took note of Lloyd's mitigation, including his letter to the court, but the judge found it significant that Lloyd was back to his "old ways" within a very short time after being released and whilst still on licence. He noted Lloyd's good progress in prison.

In relation to Doran, the judge noted the contents of the pre-sentence report and the reference that had been provided in relation to him. The judge did not consider that there was much mitigation for his age, immaturity, or naivety, given his previous conviction for the 2018 conspiracy to commit domestic burglary and subsequent commission of a domestic burglary. He also noted Doran's other mitigation relating to his personal circumstances.

The judge said that he would give each of the appellants an appropriate level of credit for their guilty pleas. Lloyd had spent some days in custody on remand. Those days would automatically be deducted from his sentence. Doran had spent time subject to a qualifying curfew, which entitled him to a reduction in sentence of 203 days.

The judge determined that Lloyd's appropriate sentence for count 1 after trial was six years' custody and that the appropriate sentence for count 5 was also six years' custody after trial. He ordered those sentences to run concurrently. In relation to count 6, the appropriate sentence after trial would also be six years' custody. Because that offence had been committed a month later, that sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the sentences on counts 1 and 5. In relation to count 7 (dangerous driving), the sentence after trial would be 18 months' custody and would also run consecutively.

The judge then said that he had looked at the question of totality. He would give "slightly more" than 10 per cent credit for his guilty plea, given that he had pleaded guilty "just two or three days" before the trial. This would result in a total sentence of 11 years' imprisonment, comprising five years' custody on each of counts 1 and 5 to run concurrently, five years' custody on count 6 to run consecutively, and 12 months' custody on count 7 to run consecutively. The judge also imposed the driving disqualification and extended driving test requirement to which we have already referred.

In relation to Doran, the judge said that the appropriate sentence on count 6 after trial would be six years' custody, but that he would reduce that by "more than 10 per cent" to five years and four months' custody. In relation to count 8 (aggravated vehicle taking), the appropriate sentence after trial would be 15 months' custody, which the judge said he would reduce to 13 months' custody, giving credit for the guilty plea of more than 10 per cent. Those sentences would be imposed consecutively, totalling six years and five months' imprisonment, less the 203 days deduction for the time Doran had spent subject to a qualifying curfew. The judge also imposed the driving disqualification to which we have already referred. He did not impose an extended driving test requirement on Doran.

On behalf of Lloyd, in her written submissions, as developed orally before us this morning, Ms Pidcock concedes that the judge was entitled to categorise the offence on count 1 as high culpability and category 1 harm, and that the same could be said of counts 5 and 6, although he should have applied a discount to his sentences for each of those offences to recognise that they were attempts rather than completed offences. Ms Pidcock also concedes that the judge was entitled to characterise the dangerous driving offence as falling within category A1 of the guideline. Finally, she accepts that ordering the sentences to run consecutively was not incorrect in principle. Her straightforward submission in support of this appeal is that, in addition to failing to apply a discount to the sentences for counts 5 and 6, given that they were attempts, the judge failed to have sufficient regard to totality when determining the total sentence.

On behalf of Doran, Mr Singh in his written and oral submissions makes essentially the same concession regarding the sentence imposed on count 6, namely that the judge was entitled to conclude that it would have been a category A1 offence in the relevant guideline if it had been a completed offence. He submits, however, that having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to count 6, a sentence of six years' custody after trial is too high, and that the judge should also have applied a discount to reflect that the offence was an attempt. Finally, Mr Singh submits that the judge did not have sufficient regard to totality in determining the total sentence, which was too long for the total offending, particularly bearing in mind that the offences on counts 6 and 8 arose out of the same factual background.

We thank both counsel for their clear and focused submissions.

As unpleasant as these offences were, and taking full account of the weight of the appellants' relevant previous offending and the fact that the offences were committed whilst each appellant was on licence, we agree that, in each case, the total sentence imposed was too long.

In relation to Lloyd, we consider that the judge's analysis and the correct categorisation for sentencing purposes of the offence on count 1 cannot be faulted. In relation to the sentences for counts 5 and 6, however, he should have taken some account of the fact that each offence was an attempt, although he was correct to note that there was additional aggravation in relation to count 6, due to the presence of a child in the house during the offence and having regard to the substantial impact on Ms Easto and her family as set out in her victim personal statement. We consider that the judge was correct in principle to structure the sentence in the way that he did, passing concurrent sentences on counts 1 and 5 for offences that occurred less than one hour apart, and consecutive sentences for each of counts 6 and 7. Finally, we think that the judge was correct to apply a discount of at least 10 per cent for credit for the guilty plea. Having regard to totality, however, we consider that a total sentence of nine years' custody is sufficient to meet the justice of the case.

In relation to Doran, we consider that the judge ought to have taken some account of the fact that count 6 was an attempt, rather than the completed offence, and that the total sentence he passed was too long. Having regard to totality, we consider that a total sentence of five years' custody is sufficient to meet the justice of the case.

For these reasons, in relation to Lloyd, to achieve a just and proportionate sentence, we quash the sentences imposed on counts 5 and 6 and impose instead a sentence of four years' imprisonment on each count. The sentence on count 5 is to be served concurrently with the sentence on count 1, which is unaffected. The sentence on count 6 is to be served consecutively to the sentence on count 1. In relation to count 7, we order the sentence imposed by the judge to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on count 6. The total sentence to be served by Lloyd is now, therefore, nine years' imprisonment.

In relation to Doran, to achieve a just and proportionate sentence, we quash the sentences imposed by the judge on counts 6 and 8, and in their place we impose sentences of five years' imprisonment on count 6, less the 203 days relating to the time he spent on a qualifying curfew, and a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment on count 8. Those sentences will run concurrently with each other. The total sentence to be served by Doran is, therefore, five years' imprisonment, less 203 days.

Having made these adjustments to the appellants' sentences, we must make the appropriate adjustments to the respective driving disqualification orders imposed by the judge, each of which is quashed.

Having regard to sections 35A and 35B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, we make the following orders:

To the foregoing extent, the appeal against sentence of each appellant succeeds.