[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Porter, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 160 (24 January 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/160.html Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 160

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SHEFFIELD
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE THOMAS KC) [14XA1102524

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand WC2A 2LL
		24 January 2025

Friday 24 January 2025

LORD JUSTICE JEREMY BAKER: I shall ask Mrs Justice Stacey to give the judgment of the court.

MRS JUSTICE STACEY:

1. On 26 March 2024, having pleaded guilty before Doncaster Magistrates' Court, the applicant (who was then aged 49) was committed to the Crown Court for sentence pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
2. On 16 April 2024, in the Crown Court at Sheffield, the applicant was sentenced by His Honour Judge Roger Thomas KC for ten offences of fraud by false representation, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006, and for two offences of theft, contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of five months' imprisonment for each of the ten offences of fraud, and to two concurrent terms of two months' imprisonment for each of the offence of theft. The total sentence was therefore one of 50 months' imprisonment. A victim surcharge of £228 was imposed.
3. The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.
4. The facts are as follows. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offences which were committed between 5 February and 24 March 2024 in stores and service stations across South Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, and West Yorkshire.
5. The applicant's modus operandi was to seek a refund for goods he had not paid for. He would take items from the shelf of the store and then present them to the till, claiming that he had bought them previously, but had lost the receipt. He would then make up a story about why he wanted to return the goods and have a refund, often playing on the sympathy of the cashier. For example, he said that he had bought a Harry Potter Expecto Petronum Lego set, worth £47, and a Star Wars Millennium Falcon Lego set, worth £125, for a child who had sadly died from cancer before he had had a chance to give them to him, so he needed to return the goods. In this way he sought to manipulate the feelings and emotions of the store staff.
6. It was extremely distressing for staff and the court had a personal statement from one of the staff members who became so distressed that she cried in the store. Emotional blackmail was used, and in a business impact statement provided to the court, it was explained that the damage to the shops and the stores was significantly greater than the monetary value of the goods sought to be refunded.
7. The applicant was arrested on 24 March 2024. He admitted his offending and said that it was for to fund his drugs use.
8. He had 67 convictions for 230 offences spanning from 19 May 1992 to 27 October 2023. His relevant convictions included 148 fraud and kindred offences and 30 theft and kindred offences. He was on licence at the time of this offending.
9. It was accepted that the offending fell within category A5 of the Sentencing Council guidelines. The sentencing judge made an upward adjustment from the starting point to 12 months for each of the frauds, to which he then applied a one third discount on account of the early guilty plea, arriving at a notional term of eight months' imprisonment for each of the frauds. He then reduced that term again to five months' imprisonment for each fraud to reflect the principle of totality and ordered them to run consecutively to each other. The sentences of two months' imprisonment for each of the offences of theft were ordered to run concurrently.
10. Leave to appeal was sought on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant says that by ordering each sentence for the frauds to run consecutively, the judge imposed a sentence that did not reflect the principle of totality.
11. In refusing leave to appeal, the single judge noted that the applicant's extraordinarily bad previous record made these sentences perfectly justifiable. The judge took the figure of one year for each fraud after carefully following the Sentencing Council guideline, to which he then applied the proper reduction for the guilty pleas, to eight months. He then further reduced each sentence to five months and made the two theft sentences concurrent, all of which was a sensible and entirely adequate way to deal with the need to have regard to totality.
12. We agree with the single judge's conclusion. There is nothing further to add. It is not reasonably arguable that these sentences were manifestly excessive.
13. Accordingly, this renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
___________________________