Appeal against severity of sentence for multiple burglaries dismissed as rehabilitative progress weighed against serious offending

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against sentence by an individual who had received nine years’ imprisonment, with the final four years suspended, for a series of residential burglaries committed while struggling with long-term addiction and a significant criminal history. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to exceptional rehabilitation efforts or to the principle of totality, and that an even greater proportion of the sentence should have been suspended to encourage continued rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal found no error of principle in the original sentencing, holding that the judge appropriately credited the appellant’s progress (including significant reduction from the headline sentence and suspension of a substantial portion), but determined that the seriousness and repeated nature of the offences, including commission while on bail and a large number of relevant previous convictions, amply justified the final sentence. The appeal was dismissed.