No: 200701326 A6, 200701329 A6 
200701322 A6, 200701344 A6, 
200701355 A6, 200701331 A6,
200701328 A6 
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Crim 2447
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday, 3 October 2007
B e f o r e:
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT DBE 
MR JUSTICE DAVID STEEL 
HER HONOUR JUDGE GODDARD
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION) 
Between
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E G I N A 
v 
DANIEL STANBOROUGH
KHARY WALDRON 
OSAGYEFO MUCHEMWA‑ROYER 
DAVID KELLY 
OMAR MENTESH 
KAMERON HUTCHINSON 
SADIQ GHELLE 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr J Cooper appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Stanborough
Mr J Smith appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Waldron 
Mr I Jobling appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Muchemwa‑Royer
Mr R Cohen appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Kelly 
Mr J Scobie appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Mentesh 
Mr J Jones appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Hutchinson 
Mr G Underhill appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Ghelle 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgement

1.	LADY JUSTICE HALLETT:  David Steel J will give the judgment of the court. 
2.	MR JUSTICE DAVID STEEL:  There are a large number of appellants, all of whom are young, aged between 19 and 25.  They all pleaded guilty at various dates to count 1 of an indictment: conspiracy to commit burglary.  On 8 February 2007, before HHJ Bing they were sentenced as follows: Daniel Stanborough, five years; Khary Waldron, four years in a Young Offender Institution; Osagyefo Muchemwa‑Royer, six years; David Kelly, six years and under a separate indictment for a burglary, which had been transferred from Winchester, two years concurrent; Omar Mentesh, seven years; Kameron Hutchinson, six years in a Young Offender Institution, and a sentence of four months' detention imposed at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court in June for harassment was activated, but to run concurrently; and Sadiq Ghelle, four years in a Young Offender Institution.  
3.	Various provisions for forfeiture were made in respect of some of those appellants.  There were a further eight co‑accused who pleaded guilty to specific burglary counts and were sentenced the following day to various terms, running between a community sentence through to 30 months imprisonment.  The appellants bring their appeal with leave of the single judge.
4.	The conspiracy count on the indictment related to a total of 30 burglaries that were committed between June 2004 and July 2006.  Indeed, 28 of them took place between February and July 2006 at the rate of about one a week.  The bulk of them were of commercial premises and 21 involved the theft, or attempted theft, of high value professional television equipment and another five of the theft of high value plasma screens, televisions, jewellery and clothing.  It was of some note that no less than ten motorcars were used in the course of the conspiracy, four of which had been stolen.  
5.	The total value of the items stolen during the course of the conspiracy were something approaching £2 million.  The damage to the premises concerned was put at over £46,000.  More significantly, the economic effect on some of the companies involved was very severe.  Indeed one was put out of business entirely.
6.	The appellants are all part of the number of individuals who were party to the conspiracy, albeit some could only be linked to single burglaries.  The prosecution submitted, and it is not in issue, that much of the equipment that had been stolen was hard to sell on the open market, being valued at something between £12,000 and £30,000 a piece.  Accordingly it was clear that the items were being stolen to order for a small, albeit discrete, group of people and thereafter probably disposed of abroad.
7.	The prosecution opened their case by reference to a 41‑page prosecution case summary dealing in depth with 28 of the burglaries and the outcome of the arrests and various interviews.  It would not be convenient or helpful for this court now to solemnly set out the factual circumstances of each and every one of those 28 burglaries.  Suffice it, we think, to simply refer to two of them: the first and the last.  The first took place in June 2004 in the early hours at a building called Richmond Buildings in W1.  It was all captured on CCTV.  Thirty items of Sony digital production equipment and camera bags were stolen.  A stolen BMW was used and entry gained by forcing the front door.  The items taken were driven off in the BMW.  
8.	The last took place in July 2006.  It concerned the burglary of premises in the NW 5 area of London belonging to a fashion/importer wholesaler. Suspects using two cars arrived and forced the doors with a crowbar. The premises were then ransacked and unique designer clothing, with a value put at least £700,000, was stolen, albeit half of it was later recovered.  It was this burglary, amongst others, that Mr Mentesh was involved in and indeed was seen carrying large quantities of the clothing.
9.	There was one other indictment, which we have already mentioned in passing, relating to a burglary with which Mr Kelly was involved when an industrial unit was entered into by forcing shutters and smashing a pain of glass.  Two large digital video recording devices were stolen with the value in excess of £21,000.
10.	All the appellants pleaded guilty, at various stages, either at the plea and directions hearing, or shortly thereafter.  Some of them put forward a written basis of plea, which were accepted.  Briefly we can describe the position as follows: Mr Mentesh admitted involvement in five burglaries and indeed in playing an organisational role.  Mr Hutchinson admitted involvement in the conspiracy between December 2005 and March 2006, and participation in four burglaries.  Mr Stanborough admitted to being present as a foot soldier, as he put it, in three burglaries and allowing his Mini to be used for certain burglaries.  Mr Waldron admitted involvement in two burglaries and Mr Kelly admitted involvement in the conspiracy from April to June 2006, albeit not, as he put it, as an organiser, and was in fact involved in four burglaries.  Mr Ghelle admitted involvement in a single burglary, but no other activity in furtherance of the conspiracy.
11.	In his sentencing remarks the judge correctly adverted to the fact that the conspiracy was part of a professional, organised and serious crime intended to acquire high‑value film and editing equipment.  The court presumed, again in our judgment correctly, that all involved would have been handsomely paid for such activity.  He noted that stolen vehicles had been used, and emphasised that a degree of reconnaissance and research was necessary in order to identify the target premises, some of which were in fact attacked twice.  He referred to the value of the value of the goods that had been taken. Of particular note was his observation that a trial involving so many defendants would have been complex and difficult, so substantial and maximum credit needed to be given for the pleas since much public money and court time had been saved.  He then set out the sentences, which we have summarised already. 
12.	The single judge in giving leave to appeal focused on one underlying and fundamental issue, namely the sentence imposed on Mr Mentesh of seven years.  As the single judge, in effect, put it: if that sentence was displaced it followed, almost inevitably, that the sentences in respect of the other appellants should be displaced as well, since Mr Mentesh's sentence formed the basis of grading everybody else.
13.	In consequence we asked Mr Scobie, who appeared on behalf of Mentesh, to deal with that appeal first.  His argument, succinct and effective, was along this theme: the judge in his sentencing remarks indicated that his starting point was nine to ten years, however, the maximum sentence for commercial burglary is ten years.  Yet on the facts, not least the facts as pertained to Mr Mentesh, this conspiracy and these burglaries were not at the top level.  We agree.
14.	The judge was faced unquestionably with a difficult sentencing exercise.  He was faced with an organised and focused series of burglaries.  Indeed, he described the defendants and appellants as rapacious in the way they conducted them.  He was right to reflect the fact that high values were involved, that the appellants must have been well rewarded and significant damage had been occasioned both to property and to the economic interests of the companies concerned.
15.	It followed that, as Mr Scobie realistically put it, the matter was towards the top end of the scale, but not at the maximum level.  He submitted to the court that an appropriate and realistic sentence as a starting point for Mr Mentesh was eight years.  This reflected the seriousness of the offences and the conspiracy, his involvement in no less than five burglaries, and the fact that he was very much at the organisational level, albeit perhaps not at the top.  
16.	Once that figure was to be regarded as the appropriate starting point, he submitted that a full, indeed maximum, discount, as the judge indicated he was minded to make, would lead to a reduction to something in the region of five‑and‑a‑half years.  It has to be recorded that in a case of this complexity, and size, the fact that a very substantial amount of money and cost was saved by the realistic pleas entered by the appellants should be recognised.  Indeed it is very important that there should be an encouragement to plead in cases of this kind.
17.	Accordingly, we indicated to counsel at the end of argument relating to Mr Mentesh's appeal, that we were minded to reduce his sentence to five‑and‑a‑half years and equally we were minded, with one exception, to reduce the other sentences imposed on the other appellants by the same margin of 18 months.
18.	So far as Mr Kelly and Mr Muchemwa‑Royer are concerned, the outcome would be a sentence of four and a half years, and we do not understand that to be suggested to be inappropriate.  However, further submissions were made as regards Mr Waldron, Mr Hutchinson and Mr Stanborough.  So far as Mr Hutchinson is concerned, and we  remind ourselves that the sentence imposed on him was some six years, it was submitted on his behalf that a further discount should be made below four‑and‑a‑half years to reflect his youth and the very modest return that he made on the burglaries in which he was involved.  We are wholly unpersuaded by that and indeed would add with good measure, that he is perhaps fortunate that the sentence in relation to harassment was not activated consecutively. So far as Mr Stanborough is concerned, he was sentenced to five years.  Again it is submitted on his behalf that a further discount below three‑and‑a‑half years should be made by reason of his youth and the fact that he was only involved in some three burglaries, albeit he has accepted that his Mini was used in several.  Once again we are wholly unpersuaded by that.  We believe this reflects a realistic comparison between Mr Stanborough and Mr Hutchinson above him, and Mr Waldron below him.  
19.	So far as Mr Waldron is concerned, it was submitted that his position was not dissimilar to those who had pleaded guilty to individual burglaries.  That may be so, though it has to be noted that he did plead guilty to the conspiracy.  His involvement in some two burglaries, albeit with precious small return, does not persuade us that it is appropriate to reduce the sentence on him below two‑and‑a‑half years.  
20.	This lastly leaves Mr Ghelle.  He is a young man of 19.  The sentence on him was of some four years.  It is clear to us that his involvement was extremely limited.  Although he pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge, nonetheless perhaps his role can be regarded as more akin to those who accepted responsibility for individual burglary counts and we are minded to further reduce his sentence of four years to two years.  
21.	To that extent, all these appeals are allowed.  
22.	LADY JUSTICE HALLETT:  Thank you very much gentleman.