R v Alan Smith
[2023] EWCA Crim 1037
R v George William O’Hare & Ors
22 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 900
Court of Appeal
Five people were part of a gang that robbed lots of fancy shops. They were very sneaky and careful. The judge gave them long prison sentences. These appeals said the sentences were too long, but the court said the judge was fair and the sentences were okay.
Key Facts
- •Five appellants were involved in an organised crime gang committing high-value commercial burglaries in Central London between 2019 and 2020.
- •The gang used sophisticated methods to avoid detection, including changing unregistered SIM cards, using stolen vehicles and cloned plates, and employing lookouts.
- •The burglaries involved 'ram raid' and 'smash and grab' tactics, targeting luxury designer stores.
- •The core members and ringleaders were Richard Walsh and Dale McKee.
- •Appellants were variously charged with conspiracy to burgle and aggravated burglary.
- •Sentences ranged from 25 months to 13 years' imprisonment.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for conspiracy to commit burglary under section 9(1) of the Theft Act 1968 and section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, and aggravated burglary under section 10(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Theft Act 1968, Criminal Law Act 1977
Sentencing guidelines for non-domestic burglary are not always applicable to serious, organised crime gang burglaries involving 'ram raid' tactics.
Non-Domestic Burglary Guideline
Previous Court of Appeal decisions on 'ram raid' offences offer valuable guidance in sentencing, even when guidelines exist.
R v Byrne & Ors (1995), R v McCaffery and McCaffery [2009], R v Delaney [2010], R v Lawlor [2012]
Delay in investigation and trial may be a mitigating factor in sentencing.
R v Phillips [2015], R v Kerrigan and Walker [2014]
Totality and parity principles must be considered when sentencing for multiple offences.
Sentencing Guidelines User Guide
Outcomes
Appeals against sentence dismissed.
The judge's approach to sentencing was not erroneous in principle and sentences were not manifestly excessive. The judge properly considered the guidelines, relevant authorities, and individual circumstances of each appellant.
Delay in prosecution was not considered a significant mitigating factor.
The complexity of the investigation and multiple defendants justified the time taken.