Burglary offences; New proposed sentencing guidelines
The Sentencing Council has announced a consultation on the revision of sentencing guidelines for domestic, non-domestic and aggravated burglary offences.
The existing burglary definitive guideline was the second to be developed by the Sentencing Council and came into force under criminal law in 2012. The proposed guidelines have been developed following an evaluation of the existing ones.
The evaluation suggested that the severity of sentencing had increased for domestic burglary and aggravated burglary since introducing the guideline. There was also an increase in sentencing severity for non-domestic burglary, but it was not clear whether this was a result of the guideline or not. As a result of further evaluation, it was found the guideline had contributed to unanticipated increases in sentencing. The Sentencing Council intended to review the existing guidelines due to the evaluations but has been unable to do so until now.
Why is it being reviewed?
The Sentencing Council says that their methods for estimating the resource impact of a guideline are now more well developed. It was previously limited in its ability to assess how the offences would be categorised and sentenced under the guideline.
In developing the guideline, the Council considered data from the Crown Court Sentencing Survey, transcripts of judges’ sentencing remarks, and evidence of the reasons for the increases in sentencing severity.
The Council concluded that although the aggregate impact of the impact on sentencing outcomes had not been predicted, the sentencing practice was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. The higher sentences are therefore expected to be maintained for the more serious offences under the proposed guidelines.
In particular, the changes proposed are to introduce middle categories for both culpability and harm. The Council says that the introduction of middle categories will provide greater flexibility for judges and magistrates in deciding the appropriate sentence.
Non-domestic burglary
The new medium culpability category is “some degree of planning or organisation”. It will also include other cases that fall within categories A and C because factors of A and C are present but balance each other out, or the offender’s culpability falls between the factors described in A and C.
In the categories of harm, the new version in category two is “theft of/damage to property causing some degree of loss to the victim (economic, commercial or personal value), and “greater emotional impact on the victim than would normally be expected”.
Domestic burglary
The Council decided that targeting is a very common feature of these offences, so including this factor in the high category could capture too many cases in the highest level of culpability. The factor is proposed to be changed to “targeting a vulnerable victim”.
The rest of the proposed changes to both culpability and harm factors are as per the non-domestic guideline.
Aggravated burglary
Considerable thought was given to the “weapon present on entry” factor in the existing guideline, noting the recent case of Sage. The point from Sage was that the presence of a weapon on entry was an essential element of the section 9(1)(a) offence, and there could be a risk of double counting. It is proposed to remove the factor from high culpability and for it to become an aggravating factor. In doing so, it would avoid the problem of double-counting and enable the court to deal more severely with an offender who used or threatened with a weapon brought to the premises and captures offences, where a burglar finds premises empty and so cannot use or threaten violence. A drop-down box will provide additional guidance on the use of the “weapon carried on premises” factor.
The harm factors are worded differently from the other two offences as the factors need to be more specific about actual physical and psychological injury.
In considering the sentence ranges, the Council was said to be mindful of the potential for an increase in sentencing severity. The concern needed to be balanced against the fact this was a serious offence carrying life imprisonment. As such, there was no mention of community orders with treatment requirements as an alternative to custody. Instead, it was decided that a link to the imposition guideline should be included.
Additionally, it is proposed to add wording around consideration of a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement for the domestic and non-domestic guidelines.
The sentencing ranges for all the burglary offences have been formulated using statistical data from the Ministry of Justice’s Court Proceedings database.
The consultation opens on 9th June and runs until 1st September 2021.
How can we help?
If you need specialist advice in relation to burglary offences or any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
[Image credit: “CCTV appeal: Burglary” by West Midlands Police is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 ] Read More
Dog Theft; Barking Mad?
The theft of animals, and in particular dog theft, has been on the rise for some time. On LBC radio recently the Home Secretary Priti Patel described it as ‘absolutely shocking’ and said that she was in talks about upgrading pet theft to a more serious offence, meaning that more substantial penalties could apply.
The results of a BBC freedom of information request showed that five policing areas saw a double-digit increase in the number of dog thefts reported between January and July 2020, compared with the previous year.
Overall, about half of the 26 forces that responded to the BBC’s data request saw an increase over the last seven months, while the rest saw fewer reports.
Five forces had more report of dog theft between January and July 2020 than the whole of the previous year.
There was a significant increase across Northumbria, Devon and Cornwall and Leicestershire – compared to the same period in the previous year.
Northumbria Police saw the largest increase of reported dog thefts, rising from 27 to 67 reports.
In Leicestershire, there were 41 reports compared to 22, which was also more than the total for the whole of 2016, 2017 and 2018.
Do we need a new law?
The stealing of a pet amounts to Theft under s 1 of the Theft Act 1968, and in some cases could amount to a burglary. The offence of theft carries a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment, and burglary carries 10 years (for a non-dwelling) and 14 years for a dwelling house burglary.
It is inconceivable that any pet theft could result in a sentence anywhere near the maximums allowed for, making the creation of a new offence nonsensical, to say the least.
The Home Secretary is also mistaken in thinking that sentencing needs addressing at all. A court can always depart from a sentencing guideline to take account of novel issues, and in any event, the existing theft guideline already applies to pet theft.
The guideline assesses more significant harm having been caused where:
‘Items stolen were of substantial value to the loser – regardless of monetary worth.’
or
‘Emotional distress’ [resulted].
We might expect to see both in animal theft cases.
A general aggravating factor is ‘stealing goods to order’ as is ‘prevalence’.
Taking all these factors together demonstrates that existing maximum sentencing powers, and guidelines, are sufficient to deal with animal theft cases.
How can we help?
We ensure we keep up to date with any changes in legislation and case law so that we are always best placed to advise you properly.
If you need specialist advice in relation to any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
[Image credit: “puppy Campbell” by 23am.com is licensed under CC BY 2.0) Read More