R v Tathagata Mandal
[2024] EWCA Crim 1194
R v Sita Tamang
19 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 62
Court of Appeal
A carer stole from elderly people she was looking after. She got a two-year prison sentence, but the court reduced it to 10 months, suspended (meaning she doesn't go to jail unless she breaks the rules), because she pleaded guilty, cooperated, and the judge didn't consider everything properly, especially the impact on her baby.
Key Facts
- •Sita Tamang, a 33-year-old night carer, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for four counts of theft from elderly residents with dementia.
- •The thefts involved jewellery of sentimental value, though low monetary worth (£500).
- •Tamang admitted the offences and cooperated with the investigation.
- •There was a 21-month delay between admissions and sentencing.
- •The judge considered the high culpability due to the breach of trust and vulnerability of victims but did not fully account for mitigating factors.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines on theft, considering culpability (high trust, vulnerable victims) and harm (sentimental value, emotional distress).
Sentencing Guidelines on Theft
Guidelines on the imposition of custodial sentences, considering factors for and against suspending a sentence (rehabilitation prospects, personal mitigation, risk to public, etc.).
Guidelines on the Imposition of Custodial Sentences
Cases involving theft from the elderly and infirm usually warrant immediate custody unless powerful mitigating factors exist.
R v Butt [2022] EWCA Crim 226 and R v Allen [2018] EWCA Crim 2189
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The court found the initial starting point for sentencing too high, inadequate consideration of mitigating factors (remorse, cooperation, delay, good character), and failure to properly consider suspending the sentence due to the impact on Tamang's young child.
Sentence reduced to 10 months' imprisonment, suspended for one year.
The court adjusted the starting point considering mitigation and the impact on the child, concluding that suspension was justified despite the seriousness of the offence.
Additional requirements of a 10-day rehabilitation activity and 30 hours of unpaid work imposed.
These requirements were added to the suspended sentence.