[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Lawson, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 193 (3 February 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/193.html Cite as: [2010] EWCA Crim 193, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 71, [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) 71

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		Wednesday, 3 February 2010

1. MR JUSTICE MACKAY: At the Crown Court at Lincoln this appellant pleaded guilty to a number of offences of dishonesty and was sentenced on 16th October 2009 as follows: Count 1, theft, two years' imprisonment; counts 2 to 7, six offences of fraud, two years' imprisonment on each concurrent and concurrent with count 1; counts 8 and 9, two offences of fraud, 12 months' imprisonment on each concurrent, but consecutive to count 1, making a total sentence of three years' imprisonment.
2. This appellant had obtained a job at a care home for vulnerable elderly people in January 2008 and as such had free access to the residents rooms and personal effects. One of these ladies, a 78-year-old, had a bank account and a chequebook which she kept in her handbag. The appellant stole that chequebook (count 1) and she wrote out a cheque to a loan company for £3,100 but she mis-spelt the name of the owner of the account and the cheque was dishonoured. The police were informed and she was arrested.
3. In a search of her home another cheque from the same lady was discovered. That was made out to another company for £641 (count 3). She then gave some assistance to the police to recover the chequebook by showing where she had hidden it.
4. As to other counts, another elderly lady of 88 lived over the road from the appellant and regarded the appellant as her friend. Found in the appellant's home was a bank card belonging to this lady. It was the appellant's habit to spend time with her and go shopping for her and give her general assistance. In fact it transpired that she had used this bank card to make a number of payments (counts 5, 6 and 7).
5. On 4th September 2008, after she had been released on bail following her arrest pending enquiries into the use of the first lady's account, she used the account of her neighbour to make two payments to pay bills on her own behalf of £303 and £151 respectively (counts 8 and 9), both therefore committed while on bail.
6. Further enquiries revealed that she had used the card of a 74-year old resident of another resident home where she had worked to make payments in her own favour totalling £364 (count 4).
7. The total amount that this appellant had attempted to take from the three victims in this case was £5,820, of which she was successful as to £2,079 and unsuccessful as to the balance.
8. The appellant was a woman of previous good character who had considerable personal mitigation. She had had a difficult childhood and a marriage which came to an end when her husband was convicted of serious sexual offences against children, and that and financial difficulties put her under considerable pressure. The pre-sentence report made the obvious point that she had shown an ability to act deceitfully and in breach of trust of vulnerable people.
9. When he came to sentence her, the recorder identified the aggravating features of the offending. He described it as sophisticated and sustained, serious, venal and stupid, that it had lasted over a period of six months, there was gross abuse of trust and it included in the course of an interview an attempt to implicate other innocent people in responsibility. He gave her maximum credit for a plea at the first opportunity. He had in mind the relevant assistance from the Sentencing Guidelines Council and he reminded himself that this was repeat offending involving three elderly people.
10. The submissions made on her behalf today by Mr Stanford start from those guidelines and from an acceptance that this offending fell within the range covered by the indication relating to confidence fraud characterised by a degree of planning and multiple transactions, but a sum under £20,000 with a starting point of 18 months and a range of six months to three years' custody. In our judgment Mr Stanford was well-advised to make the concession that he did. He moves from there to say that the sentence passed totalling, as it did, three years indicates a starting point in the region of four-and-a-half years which he submits is too high looking at these offences overall. He points to her age, her good character, her personal mitigation, the fact that she gave some assistance to the police, albeit that was cancelled out by her subsequent further offending, and she has offered to repay the sums actually lost by these ladies which she will meet by a confiscation order in that amount, selling her house in order to do so.
11. These were serious offences. The recorder was right in principle to say that counts 8 and 9 required there to be consecutive sentences for those offences committed on bail. The totality of the sentence that has resulted is in our judgment, having considered the submissions made, excessive viewed overall. We would therefore quash the sentences on each of counts 1 to 7 of two years and replace them by sentences of 18 months' imprisonment. So far as counts 8 and 9, we quash the sentences of 12 months consecutive and we would replace them with a sentence of nine months on each, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the count 1 sentence. The effect of that order will therefore be to reduce the overall total sentence to one of two years and three months. To that extent this appeal is allowed.