The defendants appealed against their sentences for domestic burglary. The court took the opportunity to provide new guideline sentences for standard domestic burglaries.
Held: The sentencing advisory panel had issued new guidance, supported by scientific survey. Public opinion was one, but only one of several factors. The court should also look at the costs of a sentence, and its effectiveness. A domestic burglar, who might previously have received a sentence of eighteen months or less, should receive a non-custodial sentence involving effective punishment, and an attempt to address any underlying cause of the behaviour including addiction. The court gave lists describing what would be considered a standard burglary, and of aggravating and other features.
Mr Justice Silber The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Mr Justice Grigson
Times 20-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 3003, [2003] 1 Cr App R 627
Bailii
Theft Act 1968 9(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Revisited in – Brewster, Regina v CACD 27-Jun-1997
The court reviewed sentencing levels for domestic burglary. Such cases must always be very serious, but individual cases varied almost infinitely. After a trial an adult defendant could expect a sentence of three years’ imprisonment for burglary of . .
Cited – Saw and Others, Regina v CACD 16-Jan-2009
The defendants appealed against sentences imposed for domestic burglaries.
Held: The court should properly allow for the effect of the burglary on the particular victim. Fuller guidance was awaited from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.178525
