Burglary non-dwelling, sentence out of range/guidelines
R v Anthony Owen & Another
Owen was convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary with intent to steal, Hamilton pleaded guilty to the same offence and also driving offences. Owen was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment and Hamilton to 7 years.
The conspiracy was to steal goods in the region of £12 million from a national distribution centre. The plan was to steal four trailer units with tobacco onboard for onward delivery.
Held: a departure from the sentencing range was warranted. There was no issue that this was at a minimum a category 1 offence entailing both greater harm and higher culpability, it was a serious offence. It was acknowledged that neither appeared to be ringleaders, but the Recorder presided over the trial so was in a good position to make an assessment. However, having considered matters in the round it was concluded that the Recorder did adapt too high a starting point. Owen's sentence would be 7 years and 6 months with 6 years for Hamilton.
Indecent photos; voyeurism
R v Tony Richards
The appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of indecent photos of a child and was convicted of two counts of voyeurism. His total sentence was 15 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against his two convictions for voyeurism.
As part of the investigation into his possession of indecent images, the appellant's mobile phone was seized. When the contents were accessed videos were found of sexual acts, and the police suspected the three women participating had not consented to being filmed. Two of the women were identified and made a complaint.
The appellant admitted making the recordings for his own sexual gratification and formed part of a sexual fantasy. The complainants were escorts or prostitutes, and they had sex in return for payment. The prosecution case was that the filming occurred in a place that could reasonably be expected to provide privacy. The appellant said that both women agreed to the filming and that he had been charged a higher price for it.
At trial, the issue left for the jury to determine was whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the act of intercourse was private.
Held: the only element of the offence that required more detailed consideration was whether he had recorded a private act for the purposes of s68, given he was one of the participants. The presence of the appellant as one of the participants did not lessen the reasonable expectation of privacy in this sense, namely that what occurred would not be available for later viewing, even if only by the appellant. It was right for the judge to leave the case to the jury.
The appeal was dismissed.
Contempt of court
The Attorney General’s Office v Andrew Pritchard
The Solicitor General sought an order of committal against Pritchard. It was common ground that he had used his mobile phone on ten occasions to make audio recordings of proceedings in the crown court, without leave of the court. He was a solicitor’s clerk and said that he had recorded the proceedings as he found it difficult to keep up with the necessary note-taking. The recordings were used to dictate a note of the proceedings. The recordings were discovered in the course of criminal proceedings, of which he was acquitted.
Held: it was in the public interest to brings the proceedings as recording without permission is serious, they were also carried out over three years. He had acted in contempt as he admitted making the recordings and there was nothing to suggest he had permission. In so far as harm was concerned, there were several recordings, but no use other than by him, and they were protected by a PIN.
There was strong personal mitigation such that a suspended sentence was appropriate, and four weeks suspended for one year was imposed and an order for £6,000 costs.
Carer with dependants
R v Sharnah Doyle
The appellant's brother was serving a prison sentence and, along with a prison officer, was operating a business supplying drugs and other contraband. The appellant's role was allowing her bank account to be used for "customers" to make payments, and she pleaded guilty to money laundering. The total activity was £1,475 over eight weeks.
When the police attended her home address, they found a small cannabis grow of six plants. She said they were entirely her responsibility, although her partner had run from the police as they arrived. She also pleaded guilty to producing cannabis. She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for money laundering and two months concurrent for the cannabis. The prosecution accepted that the appellant did not know the criminal activity was drug supply but that she suspected her brother was engaged in some form of criminality
The appellant had a young son and was heavily pregnant; it was submitted that this situation ought to have caused the judge to suspend the sentence or impose a community order.
Held: "...for offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing." The judge had in mind the child and her pregnancy but did not indicate how he intended to give effect to the obligations for the court when dealing with cases of this kind. It was open to the court to suspend the sentence, and this was a clear case for doing so. The immediate imprisonment was quashed, and a suspended sentence of the same length and nature imposed.
