[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 >> Parekh, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1278 (29 March 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1278.html Cite as: [2011] EWCA Crim 1278

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		29th March 2011

1. MRS JUSTICE THIRLWALL:
2. The appellant is 51 years old. On 8th November 2010, at Harrow Crown Court, he pleaded guilty to an offence of theft of £74,880.75 from the post office at which he worked. On 10th January 2011 he was sentenced by Mr Recorder Kogan to 18 months' imprisonment. This is his appeal against sentence which he brings with the leave of the single judge.
3. The facts were these. The appellant was the sub-post master at Willesden Post Office. He had taken on the business as an agent of the Post Office in 2006. For some years it ran reasonably smoothly, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had no previous business experience. However, as later transpired, during the second part of 2008 the business began losing money. Some serious errors were made by staff in 2008 which led to large losses. The appellant was obliged under his contract with the post office to make good those losses. The business continued to lose money. A plan the appellant had to convert premises above the post office failed when planning permission was refused. As the business got into greater difficulty he began to take money from the post office account to cover staff wages, council tax and other expenses. This went on for some ten months.
4. In April 2009, during a routine unannounced audit by the Post Office, he told the auditors that he thought that there would be a shortfall of between £50,000 and £60,000. In the event the shortfall was over £70,000, as we have already said.
5. The appellant co-operated with the investigation into the offence. He explained that he had hidden the thefts by inflating the figures at the end of each month and falsifying the figures for cash he entered into the computer system at the end of each day. The deception could not therefore be detected, save by a manual reconciliation of cash and stock which occurred during the audit in April 2009.
6. It was accepted by the Crown that the theft had occurred in the way and for the reasons we have described. None of the money went into the appellant's pocket, it all went to keep the business going.
7. The appellant admitted what he had done to the Post Office investigators. Nonetheless, he pleaded not guilty at the plea and case management hearing in November 2009. It is not entirely clear why that was the case, although we understand that it may have been on legal advice. Nonetheless, it was only when the case was warned for trial a year later, in November 2010, that he notified the court that he wished to change his plea, which he duly did. It meant that full credit could not be given for the guilty plea.
8. It should be said, and it is greatly to the appellant's credit, that he had repaid all of the money to the Post Office by raising a mortgage on his family home.
9. We turn then to the mitigation. The appellant is a man of impeccable character, a hard worker and a good father. He has worked from the age of 15. He spent his savings on buying the post office business so that he could support his family's future. The Recorder had before him, and we have read, a number of character references, some from his grown up children, others from members of the wider community. All speak of the appellant as a pillar of the community, a kind and good man who worked tirelessly and generously for charitable organisations. It is plain from our reading of the papers that the appellant's remorse was and is palpable, as is the dreadful shame that he feels about what he has done and the inevitable serious effect it has had on him, on his family and on his family's reputation in the local community. The Recorder accepted that he was not in good health, either physically or indeed mentally.
10. The Recorder approached his task thus. Firstly, he took account of the sentencing guidelines for theft. He observed, correctly, that this was a case where more than £20,000 was stolen and it was taken in breach of a high degree of trust. The guideline starting point was three years and the sentencing range was two to six years. The appropriate sentence was one of two years, but given the appellant's guilty plea, albeit not at the first opportunity, he reduced the sentence, by what we consider a generous 25 per cent, to one of 18 months' imprisonment. It was, on any reading, a careful, thoughtful and humane sentencing exercise.
11. The grounds of appeal may be summarised thus. In the light of the very considerable mitigation which was before the Recorder, and which we have rehearsed, the sentence was manifestly excessive. It was developed before us effectively in this way: that this was a wholly exceptional case because the appellant is a wholly exceptional man.
12. In support of his submission that this was an exceptional case which would have entitled the Recorder to sentence outside the guidelines, Mr Woodcock relies on paragraph 8 of the guideline itself, which reads:
13. "The starting point for sentencing ranges in this guideline are based on the assumption that the offender is motivated by greed or a desire to live beyond his or her means."
14. We accept, as did the Recorder, that the appellant was not in this case motivated by greed. It appears that his motivation was ultimately his pride in that he did not wish to acknowledge that he was failing in his business, and rather than approaching his family, who would have been willing and able to help him, he resorted to dishonesty.
15. It is apparent to us that in the course of this careful sentencing exercise the Recorder did not take as a starting point the three years' custody which is identified in the guidelines. He must have started at a lower starting point in order to come to his provisional sentence of two years to which he applied the 25 per cent discount. In short he took into account paragraph 8.
16. In our judgment, this was an extremely serious offence, committed over a prolonged period, some ten months. Whilst we recognise the very considerable mitigation, we cannot accept that the circumstances, either of the offence or of the offender, were exceptional. It was, as the Recorder said, an offence committed in breach of a high degree of trust. We have reflected on everything that has been urged upon us by Mr Woodcock this morning and we have reviewed the sentencing remarks with some care. In our judgment, the approach the Recorder took was entirely correct, as was the sentence. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.