R v James Dymond
[2023] EWCA Crim 1051
Paulius Kriauciunas v R
30 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1142
Court of Appeal
A man was jailed for handling stolen cars. His lawyer argued his sentence was too harsh compared to a friend also involved. The court disagreed, saying the man's long criminal record justified the longer sentence. The difference in sentences wasn't unfair, so the appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Appellant pleaded guilty to six counts of handling stolen goods.
- •Offenses involved stolen vehicles valued at £143,000.
- •Offenses were sophisticated and involved a device to replicate key fobs.
- •Appellant's fingerprints were found on stolen vehicle parts.
- •Appellant had 15 previous convictions for theft-related offenses in Lithuania and Germany.
- •Co-defendant, Mickeliunas, received a lesser sentence due to totality considerations related to other offences.
- •Judge considered appellant's limited role in the offenses but emphasized their professional and sophisticated nature.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for handling stolen goods.
Relevant sentencing guideline (unspecified in document)
Principle of totality in sentencing.
R v Mickeliunas (implied from the case)
Test for undue disparity in sentencing.
R v Balfour Beattie [2007] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 65
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
The judge's approach to culpability and sentencing was deemed appropriate. Disparity between the appellant's sentence and the co-defendant's sentence was not considered undue given the differences in criminal history and the application of the principle of totality in the co-defendant's case.