When sentencing an offender for burglary, the recorder had been entitled to take into account the offender’s intention to commit grievous bodily harm by breaking into his former girlfriend’s home and attacking her new boyfriend. The fact that the offender was charged under the Theft Act 1968 s.9(1)(b), and was not charged with grievous bodily harm or with an offence under s.9(1)(a), did not preclude the recorder from taking the full facts into account.
A total sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment was appropriate following pleas of guilty to burglary and theft of a car. The offender had entered the house of his ex-girlfriend without permission, threatening her with a screwdriver and taking her car keys before stealing her car. The burglary came within Category 1 of the definitive guidelines and was seriously aggravated by the offender’s appalling criminal record and the domestic violence element of the offence.
The Court of Appeal urged greater vigilance by advocates involved in sentencing hearings before the Crown Court. Three convictions for shoplifting were quashed as they were summary-only offences valued at less than £200 and should not have been included in the indictment.
A sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a repeat offender who had been convicted of burglary and theft.
Sentences of nine years and four months’ imprisonment/detention were appropriate in the case of three men who had pleaded guilty at a late stage to conspiracy to burgle.