R v Emily Ellwood
[2023] EWCA Crim 1114
R v Aimee Trounce
2 November 2022
[2022] EWCA Crim 1737
Court of Appeal
Aimee helped steal handbags. She had to pay back £4000, but the judge thought that was too much money over too long. He lowered it to £2400 over 2 years instead.
Key Facts
- •Aimee Trounce pleaded guilty to theft of Mulberry handbags from John Lewis.
- •She was the getaway driver; co-accused Ellis Smith brandished a weapon.
- •12 handbags worth £10,650 were stolen; none recovered.
- •Trounce received a 2-year community order, 100 hours unpaid work, 15 days rehabilitation, and a £4,000 compensation order (£150/28 days initially, reduced to £100/month).
- •Smith received suspended sentences and a compensation order of £6,650 + £300.
- •Trounce's appeal concerns only the compensation order.
- •Trounce's means and the compensation order's duration were the main points of contention.
- •The defense argued that the compensation amount should be reduced as it reflected retail price, not wholesale loss; four individuals were involved but only two were prosecuted; mitigating factors were not adequately considered; and the payment period was excessive.
Legal Principles
Compensation orders should be proportionate and not impose an unreasonable burden.
R v Bradburn (1973) 57 Cr App R 948; R v Ganyo [2012] 1 Cr App R(S) 108; R v York [2019] 4 WLR 13
There is no principle against ordering full compensation from one defendant even if others were involved but lack the means to contribute.
R v Beddow (1987) 9 Cr App R(S) 235
Outcomes
The compensation order was quashed and replaced.
The original order's duration was deemed unreasonably burdensome given Trounce's low income and lesser role in the offence. The court considered a payment period exceeding 3 years to be disproportionate.
The total compensation amount was reduced.
The reduced amount of £2400 reflects a 2-year payment period at £100 per month, deemed reasonable given the circumstances.
The judge's handling of the total loss suffered by John Lewis was not criticised.
The defense did not raise concerns about the use of retail price rather than wholesale loss at the appropriate time when both sides were represented.
The judge's decision to not apportion the loss amongst the four participants was upheld.
This issue was not raised when the prosecution was represented and lacked legal support. The court cites R v Beddow (1987) as precedent supporting the judge's decision.