R v Roberts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE STEYN |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 1987 |
| Neutral Citation | [1987] EWCA Crim J0326-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 187/F/87 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 26 March 1987 |
[1987] EWCA Crim J0326-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Purchas
Mrs. Justice Heilbron
and
Mr. Justice Steyn
No. 187/F/87
MISS Y. COEN appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
On 4th December 1986 at Lincoln Crown Court the appellant pleaded guilty to three offences of burglary. He was sentenced to 18 months' youth custody concurrent in respect of each of those offences. Twelve other offences, six of burglary and six of attempted burglary, were taken into consideration.
In a lucid speech it was submitted by counsel on his behalf that the sentences were manifestly excessive.
Two of the offences to which the appellant pleaded guilty and a number of the offences on the list of offences to be taken into consideration related to dwelling houses. On the other hand, it was rightly emphasised on behalf of the appellant that by his particular modus operandi he selected only unoccupied houses as targets and he never burgled at night. The serious aggravating feature of breaking into a house, known or suspected to be occupied, is therefore absent.
In the grounds of appeal but not in argument before us it was suggested that these were rather amateurish burglaries. Having regard to the fact that the appellant used gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints and sellotape when breaking windows, this court considers that point to have been overstated. It is also relevant that in some cases the appellant stole valuable property. For example, the first two counts to which the appellant pleaded guilty asserted that the sums involved were of the order of £1100 and £600. But there were substantial recoveries. Most importantly, it was said in the grounds of appeal that all the offences occurred within a very short span of time. It is true that most of the offences were committed in July and August 1986 but the court notes that the list of offences to be taken into consideration includes two offences committed in February and April last year.
Turning now to the personal circumstances of the appellant, two points stand out. First, the appellant was only 18 when he committed the offences and when he was sentenced. Secondly, he has no previous convictions. There was before the judge a favourable social enquiry report which described the appellant as "a normally well adjusted young man who had 'gone off' the rails". It was recommended in that report that a non-custodial disposal would be desirable. The latter recommendation was one which the judge felt he could not adopt because of his duty to protect the public and the seriousness of the offences.
Against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Van Dongen (Anthony Gerrard); R v Van Dongen (Mitchell)
...have reached." The potential danger of delving into the minds of the jury was recognised in Bullard v The Queen, quoting Humphreys J in R v Roberts [1942] 1 All ER 187, and again in Edwards v The Queen [1973] AC 648 at 659. 20. It may very well be that the jury in the present case would st......
- Lloyd (A.P.) and Others (A.P.) v McMahon
-
R v Hancock
...standards dishonest. 44 We doubt whether it was necessary for the judge to give a Ghosh direction at all. As this court has said, in R. v. Roberts (1987) 84 Cr.App.R. 117, there is no need to do so unless the defendant has raised the issue that he did not know that anybody would regard what......
-
R v Monks; R v Eddy
...28Counsel's submission that on the authorities the offences must be taken individually was right as the authorities then stood: see R. v. Roberts 9 Cr. App. R. (S) 152. In each case the test must be whether "the kind of offence which was committed ….. would make right thinking members of th......