R v George William O’Hare & Ors
[2023] EWCA Crim 900
R v Antonio Paul Counihan & Ors
3 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 747
Court of Appeal
Four people stole lots of expensive equipment from BT vans. The judge gave them suspended sentences (meaning no jail time unless they re-offend). The government appealed, saying the sentences were too light. The appeals court agreed the sentences were lenient but said they weren’t *unfairly* light because the thieves had changed their lives since the crimes and there were huge delays in the case.
Key Facts
- •Four defendants (George, Wright, Counihan, Neal) conspired to steal fibre optic equipment from BT Openreach vans across 8 English counties between May 2019 and January 2020.
- •34 separate theft/attempted theft events occurred, causing £262,754 in direct losses and £390,627 in total losses.
- •Defendants had specialist knowledge of BT operations and the black market for the stolen equipment.
- •George ran a fibre optic business, employing Wright, Counihan, and Neal.
- •Defendants pleaded guilty, but with varying degrees of responsibility accepted in their pleas.
- •The Crown argued for higher sentences, classifying the offence as high culpability, Harm category 1.
- •Defendants presented mitigating factors such as previous good character, gambling addiction, rehabilitation efforts, and family circumstances.
- •The judge suspended the sentences, considering the defendants' changed circumstances and the significant delays in the case.
- •The Solicitor General appealed, arguing the sentences were unduly lenient.
Legal Principles
Sentencing in conspiracy cases should consider individual contributions and culpability.
Khan (Kazim) [2013 EWCA Crim 800]
A conspiracy involving multiple offences may merit a higher sentence than for a single offence, but not exceeding the maximum for the most serious offence.
R v Hanrahan [2017] EWCA Crim 1256
Delay in trial may be a mitigating factor, but not always.
R v Beattie Milligan [2019] EWCA Crim 2367, R v Gordon [2022] EWCA Crim 1610
Sentences of two years or less can be suspended if sufficient factors warrant it.
Hussain [2019] EWCA Crim 1542, R v Haywood [2022] EWCA Crim 476
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal upheld the suspended sentences.
While acknowledging the sentences were lenient and at the bottom of the justifiable range, the court found they were not unduly lenient. The court considered the defendants’ significant rehabilitation efforts, the exceptional delays in the case, and the substantial impact immediate imprisonment would have on their families and dependents.