R v John Thomas Edden
[2023] EWCA Crim 1082
R v Terrance David Bailey
6 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1542
Court of Appeal
A man was given a long prison sentence for three burglaries. The judge didn't fully consider that he hadn't committed a crime for eight years before these ones. The appeal court reduced his sentence because the original sentence was too harsh.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, Terrence David Bailey, was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment for three counts of non-residential burglary.
- •The burglaries involved smashing windows and stealing cash from Co-op stores in Hastings, Horam, and Bexhill.
- •The total stolen amount was just under £22,000.
- •The appellant has 37 previous convictions for 102 offences, including 15 non-dwelling burglaries.
- •There was an 8-year gap between his last conviction (2015) and these offences (2023).
- •The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.
- •The appellant claimed he relapsed into crime due to his brother's drug debts and threats.
Legal Principles
Totality Principle in Sentencing
Totality Guideline
Considering personal mitigation in sentencing
Case Law (implied)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed. Original sentence quashed.
The original sentence failed to adequately reflect the personal mitigation (8-year gap in offending, family responsibilities) and did not properly apply the totality principle. The consecutive sentences, without sufficient reduction to account for totality, were considered manifestly excessive.
New sentence imposed: 30 months imprisonment (10 months per count, consecutive).
The Court of Appeal adjusted the sentence to reflect the mitigating and aggravating factors, applying a reduction for totality after calculating individual sentences with a guilty plea discount.