R v Darren Robert James [2026] EWCA Crim 1054

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 is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Between

R EXCrown

London

WC2A 2LL

ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT GLOUCESTER

(HIS HONOUR JUDGE LOWE) [53AH0269425]

Case No 2026/01838/A4 Tuesday 28 July 2026

Neutral Citation No [2026] EWCA Crim 1054

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL

MRS JUSTICE CUTTS DBE

HIS HONOUR JUDGE ANDREW LEES

(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

____________________

- v –

Between

DARREN ROBERT JAMES

____________________

Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

___________________

Mr B Scholefield appeared for Appellant

___________________

J U D G M E N T

Date 2026-07-28

[1]On 24 February 2026, in the Crown Court at Gloucester before Mr Recorder Pakrooh, the appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment containing two counts, one of burglary, contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 (count 1) and one of attempted burglary, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Each count represented multiple offences against the same victim at the victim's home address. The Recorder adjourned sentence to 10 April 2026. and ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report.

[2]On 17 April 2026, in the Crown Court at Gloucester, the appellant was sentenced by His Honour Judge Rupert Lowe to 28 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count, and the Statutory Victim Surcharge was imposed in the required amount. There was no pre-sentence report as the appellant had not kept his appointment. A Bench Warrant was required to secure his attendance at the sentencing hearing on 17 April 2026, following a failure to attend on 10 April 2026.

[3]He now appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge, who also granted an extension of time of three days.

[4]Count 1 represented multiple offences of domestic burglary. At the date of offending, the appellant was aged 55. He had been convicted of previous domestic burglary offences on seven occasions, namely: 18 October 1988, 26 July 1989, 15 April 1992, 25 February 1993, 31 October 1997, 1 June 2001 and 13 January 2006. In accordance with section 314(2A) of the Sentencing Act 2020, the judge was obliged to impose a minimum custodial sentence of at least three years. This applied unless the court was of the opinion that there were exceptional circumstances which(a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender, and

(b) would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances.

[5]Section 73(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2020 allows for credit for a guilty plea to be applied, provided that it does not reduce the appropriate custodial sentence below 80 per cent. In this case the minimum sentence, pursuant to section 73(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020, was 876 days (the judge having imposed 852 days). However, section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 prevents this court from increasing the minimum term.

The Offending

[6]Between 14 August and 23 September 2025, the appellant entered the home of his neighbour, James Loveridge, on five separate occasions and stole food items. The victim was 64 years of age. He was housebound and had severe mobility issues. He had left his door unlocked to allow access to his daily carers. Between 16 August and 15 September 2025, the appellant attempted to enter Mr Loveridge's home on four additional occasions with intent to steal. These instances were captured on CCTV, which showed the appellant trying the door handle but being unable to gain entry to the property. The CCTV also showed that the appellant wore gloves and dark clothing with a hood up at the time of offending.

[7]There was no Victim Personal Statement as the victim died before one could be obtained.

[8]The appellant had 39 convictions for 126 offences, spanning from 25 March 1988 to 21 August 2012. These included 90 theft and kindred offences, and the convictions for domestic burglary which we have already identified.

[9]As we have already said, the judge passed sentence without a pre-sentence report. The single judge, when granting leave to appeal, ordered a prison report and a pre-appeal report, both of which we have read.

The Written Basis of Plea

[10]The appellant pleaded guilty on a written basis which, in summary, was that he was close to the victim; that he regularly went round to the victim's house to check on his wellbeing; and that he took care of the victim in many ways, such as changing his clothing, washing him, going to the shops, and cleaning the house. He did not accept that he had committed a burglary on 4 September 2025. He denied taking money from the victim's address on any occasion.

[11]The prosecution did not accept the basis of plea but was limited in its response due to the death of the victim. It was pointed out that the victim did not mention any relationship with the appellant. When asked by the police about who provided him with care and assistance, the victim stated that he had carers from a care company who came in four times a day, but no one else provided any care for him. The victim's son and a neighbour confirmed that the victim never mentioned the appellant at all. The victim's son is adamant that the appellant never ran any errands for his father.

Mitigation

[12]The main mitigation advanced on behalf of the appellant was that he had not been convicted of a dwelling house burglary since 2006, at which time he was given a Drug Treatment and Testing Order which resulted in an absence of further offending for six years, apart from one offence of theft. Thereafter, in 2012 the appellant turned to shoplifting to fund an addiction to Class A drugs which resulted in a prison sentence for four offences of shoplifting. In addition, he was sentenced for one offence of harassment, and one offence of failing to surrender to custody. After his release in 2012, there were no convictions for any criminal offences until 2025. It was argued that, given the appellant's 13 year absence from offending, the vulnerability of his partner who suffered from bipolar disorder and was taking medication for a class A drug addiction and required the appellant’s care, and the appellant’s own mental health vulnerabilities, it would be unjust to impose the minimum term. The judge was invited either to adjourn for the preparation of a pre-sentence report or not to apply the minimum sentence and to impose a suspended sentence.

The Sentencing Exercise

[13]The judge noted that the last conviction for dwelling house burglary was 20 years ago in 2006, and that the last conviction of any sort was some 13 or 14 years ago; but he remarked that the offending was over a six-week period, against a housebound 64-year-old neighbour with severe mobility issues. He noted that there was no early indication of guilty pleas in the Magistrates' Court. He did not see the need for any hearing to resolve the basis upon which sentence should be passed, as his view was that the written basis of plea did not mitigate the sentence and in any event the victim had died. The judge expressed the view that the basis of plea arguably made the offending worse as the appellant had assumed a position of responsibility for the victim and then breached the trust the victim had in him by stealing from the victim when he was totally helpless to prevent it. The judge pointed out that the appellant's failure to co-operate with the Probation Service and his refusal to come to court left him with little confidence that he would co-operate. The judge concluded that he could not find that it would be unjust to apply the minimum term. Nor was he satisfied that the appellant would co-operate with any other form of sentence. The judge did not distinguish between the counts when he imposed sentence.

Post-Sentence Reports

[14]The prison report records that the appellant struggles with the ongoing position with his partner and her mental health issues. Sadly, his grandmother, to whom he was very close, has passed away. He too has ongoing mental health issues. The pre-appeal report states that crack cocaine and heroin use contributed to the appellant's financial difficulties which led to the instant offending. The report contains assistance with various requirements which could be attached to a community order.

The Grounds of Appeal

[15]It is submitted by Mr Scholefield, who represented the appellant in the court below, that there are exceptional circumstances which justify disapplying the statutory minimum sentence. He refers the court to Step 3 of the relevant sentencing guideline which states when considering whether there are exceptional circumstances which justify disapplying the statutory minimum sentence, the court must have regard to the particular circumstances which relate to any of the offences and the particular circumstances of the offender.

[16]The guideline also states that the seriousness of previous offences and the period of time that has elapsed between offences will be relevant considerations.

[17]In addressing the seriousness of the appellant's offending Mr Scholefield referred to the judge's categorisation of the offending as A3 in reference to the guideline. He submits that the offending is not the most serious offending of this nature. He also submits that the details of the appellant's earlier offending was not known at the sentencing hearing and further, that the fact that the appellant had received a Drug Treatment and Testing Order in 2006 suggested that that conviction was not very serious offending.

[18]Mr Scholefield relied on the case of R v Fletcher

[2015] EWCA Crim 1709

, where the court held:

"In our judgement, whilst the appellant did have a poor criminal record, the circumstances of the offence are such that it would be unjust to impose the minimum sentence required by statute. In the particular circumstances here, the two previous domestic burglaries were respectively 9 and 11 years prior to the index offence and the nature of the offence itself was not the most severe of this sort."

[19]Comparing the case of Fletcher to the index case, it is argued that the appellant's last conviction for burglary was nearly 20 years ago and that the index offending was "not the most severe of this sort".

[20]Further, it is submitted that the appellant's personal circumstances and mental health at the time of the offending and the 13 or 14 year gap in offending clearly demonstrates that the appellant had a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, despite the fact he failed to attend his appointment for the preparation of the pre-sentence report.

[21]The judge recognised that the appellant's imprisonment would have a significant impact on his partner, who depends on the appellant's care. However, it is submitted that the judge did not give a clear explanation for his finding that it would not be unjust to impose the mandatory minimum sentence. It is argued that the judge's conclusion that he had no confidence that the appellant would comply with the conditions of sentence, other than immediate custody, is not a reason for finding that exceptional circumstances did not apply. After all, it was open to the court to find exceptional circumstances and to impose a shorter sentence of immediate custody.

[22]The sentencing guideline states that circumstances will be exceptional if the imposition of the minimum term results in a sentence which is arbitrary or disproportionate. To sentence the appellant, who has not been convicted of a dwelling burglary for 19 or 20 years, or any offending for 13 or 14 years, to a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment for stealing food in a time of destitution is disproportionate.

Discussion and Decision

[23]The starting point is to consider the relevant sentencing guideline. The judge categorised the offending as falling into category A3 in the guideline when he was addressed by counsel in mitigation. In imposing sentence, the judge made no reference in his sentencing remarks to the relevant sentencing guideline, but it is not challenged, nor could it be that the offending fell into category 3A of the guideline, which has a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment and a sentencing range of six months to three years. We consider that the fact that there was multiple offending over several weeks is a factor which substantially increases the sentence within the range.

[24]The appellant's previous convictions for dwelling house burglary is an aggravating factor, albeit that it is obviously relevant that his last offending for burglary was 20 years ago. There is some mitigation in the appellant's caring responsibilities for his partner; and he was entitled to credit for a guilty plea at the plea and trial preparation hearing stage of 25 per cent.

[25]Considering all of these factors, including credit for the guilty pleas, the offending would have merited a sentence in the region of two years' imprisonment. We have considered the case of R v Fletcher, which has been drawn to our attention, and also step 3 of the relevant sentencing guideline. We accept that the age of previous convictions for burglary and the seriousness of the index offending are matters to be taken into account, but the particular decision in any case is fact specific. In the index case we are far from persuaded that the appellant's offending can be properly described as "not the most severe of this sort£. It was repeated, mean offending against a housebound, vulnerable victim and it related to the appellant's addiction to class A drugs. Further, at sentence, the judge was faced not only with a defendant who had not attended his appointment with the Probation Service but he had also failed to attend the sentencing hearing listed on 10 April 2026. In those circumstances it was open to him to find that he had no confidence that the appellant would co-operate with a non-custodial sentence.

[26]The judge could have been clearer in his explanations as to why he made the findings that he did. But in our judgment the particular circumstances which relate to any of the index offences and the particular circumstances of the offender were not exceptional; nor was it arbitrary or disproportionate so as to make it unjust to apply the minimum custodial term when sentencing.

[27]For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. ________________________________ 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 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________