CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Cutts J, Eady J)
11 March 2020
When considering whether the value of two or more low-value shoplifting offences could be aggregated for the purposes of determining a judge’s sentencing powers, the phrase “charged on the same occasion” in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.22A(4)(b) referred to when the accused appeared before the magistrates’ court to answer the charges.
CA (Crim Div) (Dingemans LJ, Jacobs J, Judge Walden-Smith)
5 December 2019
Sentences of two years’ imprisonment and two years and six months’ imprisonment imposed on two men who had stolen money from a blind busker were not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had been entitled, in the interests of justice, to depart from the sentencing guideline because of the offenders’ serious and extensive criminal records.
CA (NI) (Stephens LJ, Treacy LJ, Keegan J)
25 November 2019
The Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) considered the appropriate reduction to a sentence when an offender pleaded guilty at arraignment but did not indicate his intention to plead guilty at the outset. In particular, it considered whether the attitude of the offender at interview should be taken into account, and whether the present guidance was consistent with the terms of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 art.33(1). It also considered whether there was an impact on the level of discount if the offender was caught red-handed or if there was no viable defence.
QBD (Admin) (Nicol J)
16 July 2019
An appeal by a Polish national against an order for his extradition to answer a charge of theft relating to the importation of goods from England to Poland was allowed where a district judge had erred in categorising the offence as an extradition offence. It could not be established with certainty where the appropriation of the goods had taken place, the requesting authority’s reliance on where the harm was felt was insufficient to establish any relevant conduct in Poland and the UK police had found no evidence to suggest any intention to permanently deprive the victims of the goods, which was an integral part of theft.
DC (Bean LJ, Green LJ)
14 February 2019
The conclusion in Poland v Celinski  EWHC 1274 (Admin) that the public interest in upholding extradition would require very strong counter-balancing factors before extradition could be disproportionate under ECHR art.8 was essentially the same as the test set out in R. (on the application of HH) v Westminster City Magistrates’ Court  UKSC 25, and did not depart from it.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Nicol J, Judge Dhir QC)
11 December 2018
A total sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment was appropriate following pleas of guilty to 7 charges of theft and 11 of fraud by false representation. The offender had stolen and misused credit or bank cards from households where she had been working as a cleaner or house-sitter, and the total value of the theft and fraud was over £7,000. She had committed the offences because of her addiction to cocaine, but had subsequently sought help and had demonstrated genuine remorse. However, there had been a wholesale breach of trust and the offender had taken items of great sentimental value.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, Dingemans J, Judge Walden-Smith)
15 November 2018
A conviction for theft was not rendered unsafe by a material irregularity whereby the judge communicated a direction to the jury via a statement by the bailiff in the jury room instead of in open court, but where there was no basis for inferring that the jurors had done anything other than conscientiously obey their duty in reaching their verdict.
CA (Crim Div) (Hickinbottom LJ, Jeremy Baker J, Judge Deborah Taylor)
26 October 2018
Sentences of nine years’ imprisonment imposed on two offenders for a series of professionally planned burglaries, mainly of occupied dwellings at night, were not manifestly excessive, notwithstanding confusion concerning the maximum sentence for conspiracy to burgle. As the indictment did not expressly refer to dwelling burglaries, the maximum sentence was limited under the Theft Act 1968 s.9(3)(b) to 10 years. A consecutive one-year sentence imposed for conspiracy to steal, which related to the attendant theft of cars from the burgled premises, should have been imposed to run concurrently.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Simler J, Dove J)
10 October 2018
The exception in the Theft Act 1968 s.4(2)(a) to the general rule that a person could not steal land except when they were authorised by power of attorney” to sell or dispose of it and they appropriated it in breach of confidence, could not be invoked where the power of attorney was invalid. There was no sufficient justification for writing in the words “is (or purportedly is) authorised” or “is (or believes himself to be) authorised”. Where no conspiracy to defraud was involved, such cases were likely on their facts to fall within the ambit of the Fraud Act 2006.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, King J, Cheema-Grubb J)
4 May 2018
A conviction for theft had to be quashed because there had been no “appropriation” of property belonging to another. Although a care home manager had submitted falsely inflated claims for overtime and payment in lieu of holiday entitlement, thus reducing her employer’s bank balance, she had no control over the bank account and had not assumed the owner’s rights with regard to the bank balance. The offence charged should have been one of fraud by false representation.