Sentence for handling stolen property was unduly severe

Court of Appeal quashes sentence for handling stolen property and substitutes more lenient sentence, on the grounds that: (a) the headline sentence of six years was too high, notwithstanding that the appellant had previous relevant convictions, the fact that the crime was motivated by profit and the substantial value of the stolen goods involved where the stolen property was fully recovered in a saleable condition and a period of eight years had elapsed since the appellant’s last conviction; (b) a discount of one third was entirely adequate to reflect the mitigating factors and the same discount would be applied in re-sentencing based on the new headline sentence of four and a half years; and (c) there was no basis for suspending part of the sentence.