R v Jonathan Rhys Davies

On 11 September 2025 in the Crown Court at Cardiff, the appellant, Jonathan Rhys Davies, was sentenced for four offences. He was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for one offence of robbery. He was sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment for one offence of theft to be served consecutively. He was also sentenced for two other offences of theft, for which he was sentenced to 1 month and 4 months' imprisonment respectively, to be served concurrently. He appeals against sentence with the leave of the Single Judge.

The facts can be summarised briefly. Shortly after leaving prison the appellant stole, on three separate occasions, from Boots in Cardiff. We have watched the CCTV film of one of these offences. The appellant went into the branch with a large carrier bag. He put the bag on the floor. He began to grab large amounts of goods with both hands and then stuffed the goods into the carrier bag. He filled the bag and left. It was truly shoplifting on an industrial and premeditated scale.

One offence was committed at Boots on 5 August 2025, where he stole goods to the value of £628. On the second occasion, at the same store, on 6 August 2025, he stole goods valued in excess of £1,500. On 7 August 2025 he stole from the same store again. The goods on this occasion were valued at about £1,055.

More serious still was an offence of robbery which he committed at a different store. That occurred on the night of 5 August 2025. He went to the One Store in Cardiff. Again the events can be seen on CCTV. He entered the store with a large carrier bag. He went to one of the aisles. He helped himself to handfuls of goods, stuffing them into the carrier bag. A young, very brave shop assistant approached the appellant. The appellant said: "I've got a knife, stay back or I'll stab you". The appellant also shouted at another member of staff: "Don't try to stop me, I have a knife" whilst he, the appellant, was grabbing at his pocket suggesting that he had a knife with him. The two shop assistants retreated behind the plastic screen for their own safety. The appellant stole items valued between £300 and £500 on this occasion.

The appellant was 35 years old at the time of these offences. He has 39 convictions for 82 offences spanning from 1 February 2005 to the most recent offences. The convictions included at least 49 offences of theft from shops. He had one offence of assault and one of burglary. The judge did not consider that a pre-sentence report was necessary, and Mr Jones does not invite us to order a pre-sentence report on this occasion. We agree that a pre-sentence report is not necessary.

Dealing with the robbery offence, the judge considered the relevant Sentencing Guidelines for Robbery. He considered that the relevant category for culpability was category B as there was a threat of violence by a weapon although no weapon was in fact used. In terms of harm the judge considered that there was more than minimal psychological harm and so he considered that the offence fell within category 2. The judge referred to the victim impact statement of the young shop assistant, who said that things had got to a point where he and his colleagues had to hide behind a plastic screen in order to be safe. The shop assistant had said it should not be like that and he should be able to come to work each day without worrying that someone was going to stab him before he went home.

The starting point for a 2B offence under the guidelines is 4 years' custody. There were aggravating factors, including the previous convictions and the fact that the offence was committed whilst the appellant was on licence. The judge considered the appropriate sentence before any reduction for the guilty plea would be 4½ years' custody. He reduced that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea and that resulted in a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for that offence.

In relation to the three theft offences, the judge reflected the overall offending by increasing the sentence on one count where he imposed a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment to be served consecutively. He then imposed sentences of 1 month and 4 months' custody for the other two offences but ordered that they be served concurrently.

Mr Jones, in clear and focused submissions for the appellant, put forward two grounds of appeal. First, he submits that the judge erred in categorising the robbery as a category 2 offence in terms of harm, as there was no evidence that the harm was more than minimal. In terms of the theft offences he submitted that having regard to the guidance on totality, the sentence for theft should have been concurrent not consecutive or should have been lower than 8 months' imprisonment.

On the robbery offence, we agree that on the evidence the judge erred in categorising this as a category 2 offence. That categorisation was based on the impact statement of the victim. The statement has to be read as a whole. It was written, as the statement says, just 2 hours after the incident. The victim says that he is still taking things in and might have to make a further statement. He says that what he feels is scared and then says, quite understandably and quite rightly, that he and other members of staff ought not to have to hide behind a screen because someone is threatening to stab them. The victim did not make another statement. His reaction is understandable but the court has to proceed on evidence. We do not see that the evidence demonstrates that a court could be sure that the victim did suffer more than minor psychological harm. In those circumstances the categorisation of harm should have been category 3. The starting point for a category 3B offence under the relevant guidelines is 2 years' custody with a range of 1 to 4 years' custody. The sentence would have to be adjusted upwards from the starting point to reflect the aggravating factors of the previous convictions and the fact that the offence was committed whilst on licence. That would result in a sentence in the region of 3 years' custody. The only mitigation is the early guilty plea and that requires the sentence to be reduced by one-third, resulting in a sentence of 2 years' custody.

In relation to the offences of theft, the approach the judge took was correct. He was entitled to reflect the offending overall by increasing the sentence for one offence of theft whilst making the other sentences concurrent. There is, in our judgment, no complaint that could be made about a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment reflecting the overall offending and the aggravating factors. There is no justification for any further reduction. We consider that the judge was entitled to make the sentences for the theft offence consecutive to the robbery offence. The offence involved a different type of criminality (robbery), it was committed at a different time, against a different victim and in a different location. The judge's decision fully accords with the Guidelines on Totality. We would therefore dismiss this second ground of appeal.

In conclusion therefore, we allow the appeal to this extent. We quash the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for robbery and substitute a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment. The other sentences remain unaltered. The total sentence therefore is one of 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment.