Johnson, R v [2006] EWCA Crim 3023

Case No 200604608 A8[2006] EWCA Crim 3023
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Tuesday, 7 November 2006
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
MR JUSTICE PENRY-DAVEY
HIS HONOUR JUDGE LORAINE-SMITH
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
Between
R E G I N ACrown-v-
Between
ANDREW JOHNSON
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR S BRADY appeared for APPELLANT
J U D G M E N T

LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER:

His

Honour Judge Loraine-Smith will give the judgment of the court.

JUDGE LORAINE-SMITH:

[2]On 24th August 2006 this appellant appeared before His Honour Judge Macrae sitting at Croydon Crown Court. He had on an earlier occasion pleaded guilty to a single count of theft. He was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and he appeals that sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.[3]The appellant worked as a postman at the Royal Mail Tottenham Delivery Office. His employers noticed that a number of postal items had gone missing, and placed his activities under surveillance. On 23rd February 2006 he was arrested and his home was searched. Three stolen Halifax credit cards on letters were found in the bin in his bedroom. Furthermore, an envelope relating to two "dummy" items which had been dispatched by Royal Mail investigators the previous day as part of the investigation, were also found in that bin.[4]When the appellant was interviewed he denied any theft. He accepted that items of post had been found in his room. He claimed he had forgotten about them but then when he found them decided to destroy them for fear he would be dismissed for delaying the mail.[5]There had been allegations about other items being stolen, but prosecuting counsel when opening the facts, said this:
"Your Honour needs to deal with him in relation to the three credit cards and the associated pieces of paper that were found on his premises."
The appellant is now aged 24 and has no previous convictions. He told the probation officer that he was experiencing personal, financial and emotional difficulties when he committed this offence. The judge, when sentencing, said this:
"It is always a sad day when a person, a young man, loses his good character particularly in relation to a matter of dishonesty. The public place great confidence in the honesty and integrity of those who work within the postal system. They entrust items of value, whether it is monetary value or sentimental value, that they wish to have conveyed to others. The stealing of mail in transit causes undue alarm and concern. The sender does not know that the intended recipient does not know that it was ever sent."
Mr Brady has submitted to this court that, in the light of this plea, his good character, the pressure he was then under and the absence of any financial gain, this sentence was too long.[6]We do not think that anything but a custodial sentence would have been appropriate in the circumstances. Thefts by postal workers involve not only a breach of the trust that their employers place in them, but also cause alarm, distress and inconvenience to members of the public whose letters are stolen. This is a particularly serious offence now when identity theft is on the increase. But the Crown put their case on a very limited basis and we do not think that that was reflected in the 15-month sentence. We think the appropriate sentence was one of nine months' imprisonment and we allow this appeal to that extent.

Cited in 1 later judgment