R v John Dooley [2025] EWCA Crim 438

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 438Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Wednesday, 19 March 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELLMR JUSTICE HILLIARDHIS HONOUR JUDGE LEES(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
JOHN DOOLEY__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION_________J U D G M E N T
[1]MR JUSTICE HILLIARD: On 10 April 2024, in the Crown Court at Southwark, the applicant, then aged 44, pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to an offence of burglary committed on 4 March 2021. He also admitted an offence of failing to surrender at court on 15 July 2022.[2]On 30 April 2024, in the Crown Court at Wood Green, he pleaded guilty to a further offence of burglary committed on 11 March 2021.[3]On 7 June 2024, in the Crown Court at Southwark, he was sentenced as follows. For the first offence of burglary, two years and five months' imprisonment. For failing to surrender, one month's custody. For the second offence of burglary, three years' imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run consecutively, making a total sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment.[4]He now renews applications for an extension of time of 25 days and for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge.[5]The facts of case were as follows. At about 2.00 pm on 4 March 2021 the applicant knocked on the door of the home of an 82-year-old woman named Erlinda Chin in London W2. The applicant wore high visibility jacket and claimed to have been sent by the council to fix a leak on the floor above. He told Ms Chin that he needed to enter her home to check the water pipes. The applicant then spoke to a male accomplice who was along the corridor before going inside Ms Chin's flat. The applicant went into the kitchen and turned the taps on. He told Ms Chin to stay in the kitchen while the taps were running. He left the room but continued to talk to Ms Chin whilst she waited in the kitchen as she had been asked. After 15 minutes, Ms Chin became suspicious. She went into her living room and saw that the blinds had been disturbed. She checked her travel bag and found her passport, £5,000, $5,000, 1,000 Filipino Pesos and £500 in coins had been taken. She checked two wallets that had been in her living room and discovered that £450 in cash, set aside for her daily expenses, had also been taken. By that time the applicant had left the property. She went to a neighbour for help and the police were called. Forensic samples were taken and the applicant's DNA was found in the property.[6]On 11 March 2021, the applicant went to a flat in London N1 and told the occupant, Ms Sevignar Mustafa that he was from Hackney Council. He claimed that there was a water leak and that he would need to return the following week to repair it. On 16 March, the applicant went back to the address along with another male. Both were wearing high visibility jackets. The applicant went into the kitchen while his companion remained outside. The applicant distracted Ms Mustafa by turning on the kitchen taps and asking her to check the number at the back of the washing machine. He also made banging noises, most likely to hide whatever his accomplice was doing. The other male came back to the kitchen six or seven minutes later. The pair left shortly after, claiming that their colleague was upstairs with the tools needed to address the leak.[7]Ms Mustafa went upstairs and found that her bed had been turned upside down. Documents were on the floor and the wardrobe was open. £11,200 in cash had been taken from underneath the bottom drawer of the bedside unit. Jewellery worth £4,000 had been stolen from her daughter's bedroom - these had been wedding presents.[8]The applicant was arrested on 21 October 2021 and gave no comment in his police interview. None of the property was recovered.[9]Ms Chin made a witness statement in which she said she now feels unsafe in her home and afraid of living alone. Ms Mustafa explained that whenever she left her home she feared for her safety, thinking that someone might be following her. She had suffered financial hardship because of the money she lost. She has trouble sleeping, anxiety and bad dreams.[10]The applicant had a number of convictions between 1999 and 2021 for offences including theft and concealing criminal property. There was no pre-sentence report. None was necessary, then or now.[11]The judge had a letter from the applicant in which he said that he had had alcohol and drug problems. He expressed regret for what he had done. His wife expressed her support for him, as did a former employer.[12]When he passed sentence, the judge said that each offence of burglary fell into Category 1A of the applicable sentencing guidelines, with a starting point of three years' imprisonment. He raised the starting point for the second offence because of the greater harm caused. The jewellery stolen had sentimental value and there was clear evidence of psychological harm. There was also of course the fact that the applicant made two visits to the second address. The judge said that the applicant's previous convictions aggravated matters by a small margin. He said that the mitigation was limited, there had not been much remorse and applicant had fled the jurisdiction for two years.[13]If the applicant had been convicted after a trial, the judge said he would have passed a sentence of three-and-a-half years' imprisonment for the first burglary and four years for the second. There would have been a sentence of eight weeks' imprisonment for the breach of bail, which had caused a very substantial delay. With credit for the pleas of guilty which had come at different stages, the result would have been a sentence in the order of five years and 11 months' imprisonment. The judge then made an allowance for totality and passed the sentences we have indicated.[14]In grounds of appeal drafted by counsel, it was argued that the judge failed to take sufficient account of the applicant's personal mitigation; that he was wrong to raise the starting point for the second offence; and that the applicant's previous convictions did not constitute an aggravating factor. In addition, it was said that the judge did not take sufficient account of totality.[15]In our judgment, the grounds of appeal have no merit at all. The reasons for this conclusion have already been set out comprehensively by the single judge. He said this:
"I have considered the papers in your case and your grounds of appeal. You were sentenced to an aggregate of 5 years 6 months for two burglaries and a failure to surrender which caused a substantial delay in dealing with the substantive matters. In respect of the burglaries, you appear to accept (rightly) that each was category 1A in the Guidelines, which has a starting point of 3 years and a range of 2-6 years for a single offence. However, you submit that the Recorder erred in (i) raising the starting point for the second burglary to 4 years because the sentimental value of the stolen goods and psychological harm to the victim are inherent in the 1A categorisation; (ii) treating your previous convictions as aggravation; and (iii) not taking properly into account your mitigation, notably your remorse and your family responsibilities. There is no force in those submissions. The Recorder was entitled to go above the starting point in respect of the second burglary because, in addition to the substantial emotional and psychological impact on the victim because of the theft of items of sentimental value (which, alone, was sufficient for a 1A categorisation), those items also had significant financial value (over £11,000). He was entitled to treat your previous convictions for theft and related offences as aggravating, although he accepted that the aggravation was 'limited'. That was entirely fair and appropriate. Although you expressed some remorse in a letter to the Recorder, he was understandably unimpressed given you initially pleaded not guilty and fled the jurisdiction for two years. He was entitled to give your letter little weight, as he did. The sentences identified by the Recorder as appropriate for each burglary before reduction for plea and totality – 3 year 6 months and 4 years respectively – are not arguably manifestly excessive. The Recorder assessed the aggregate individual sentences before consideration of totality as ... approximately 6 years. He reduced that to 5 years 6 months on account of totality. These were discrete offences, with substantial aggravating factors as identified by the Recorder in his Sentencing Remarks. It is not arguable that that aggregate sentence for the aggregate of the offending was manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong. Your application for leave to appeal is out of time. However, given my views on the merits of your grounds of appeal, it is unnecessary for me to consider reasons for the delay because I would refuse your application for an extension on the basis of lack of substantive merits in any event. I simply refuse all your applications."
[16]We agree entirely with those reasons and cannot improve upon them. For the same reasons, the renewed applications must be refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE17. Tel No: 020 7404 140018. Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk