R v Michael Hanlon [2026] EWCA Crim 1064

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.[2026] EWCA Crim 1064Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 28 July 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE COULSONSIR ROBIN SPENCERRECORDER OF REDBRIDGE(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
MICHAEL HANLON__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR A RAI appeared for Appellant_________JUDGMENT
[1]The appellant is now aged 45. On 25 November 2025 in the Crown Court at Cardiff, having pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, he was sentenced by Her Honour Judge Crowther ("the judge") to a total of 51 months' imprisonment for a variety of offences. He appeals against that sentence with the limited leave of the single judge. The Facts of the Offending[2]There were three separate indictments. The first in time ended 625. This contained a single allegation of theft. The facts were these. On 7 February 2025 a witness noted the appellant walking alone on the railway tracks between Danescourt and Llandaf stations in Cardiff. He was looking through white bags next to the tracks and removing coils of copper cabling and then throwing the cabling over a boundary fence. The police were contacted.[3]Officers attended the scene and made their way to woodland adjacent to the railway tracks where they smelt burning. Burning railway cables is commonly undertaken by thieves to remove identification markings. The officers came across the appellant and another man close to the boundary fence of the railway. There was a pushbike and two holdalls nearby. When officials made their presence known the appellant responded:
"We found that cable in the bush over there. We haven't stolen it."
[4]Police officers subsequently recovered cable cutters, a lump hammer, a hand saw, gloves, electric tape, lighter fluid, a lighter and butane gas from the scene. It transpired that 25 metres of copper cabling had been stolen from the trough next to the railway. The cost of the stolen cable was £1,312.50. To replace the cable 18 workers had to attend the site and the cost of the replacement work was calculated at £26,000. The appellant answered "no comment" to all questions in interview.[5]The next offending in time was covered by indictment ending 425. On about 5 May 2025 the appellant stole a Volkswagen Sharan vehicle belonging to a Mr Ali, worth about £5,000. Later that night the appellant drove it with another man to the Co-Op store in Pontcanna. They were seen on CCTV unscrewing a wooden board at the front of the store. They then entered the premises wearing black gloves and balaclavas. The security system was activated and they left without stealing any items.[6]The same night another Co-op store at Pierhead Street on Cardiff Bay was the subject of a burglary. Again, the appellant and another man arrived in the stolen Sharan. A temporary chipboard window was removed and the men entered the premises stealing £698 worth of goods. The stolen vehicle was later found abandoned.[7]Indictment ending 224 concerned offences committed on 9 May 2025, just four days later. The appellant and another man were seen wearing dark clothing and black face coverings entering Tesco in Excelsior Road, Cardiff. They were seen on CCTV to open the petrol station door by force with use of an icepick. They then tried to open the doors in the shop but left without taking anything of value.[8]A second burglary took place that same evening at Tesco Express on Tyn–y–Parc Road. Again, CCTV showed the appellant and another man entering the store about 2.00 am and prying open those sliding doors and shutters with a large crowbar. Both men went to the tills and one man used an axe to prise off one of the till drawers and the other man ripped out the till with his hands. A total of £1,100 was taken. The damage to the metal shutter and the sliding doors cost approximately £4,000 to repair.[9]The indictment ending 425 also included a later incident. Again involving the appellant, this time at Davaar House in Cardiff Bay on 22 August 2025, where he shoulder-barged the main door into the building and stole parcels belonging to the residents.[10]The appellant was arrested on 26 August 2025 and was in possession of a small black holdall. As the bag was searched he said:
"I don't know what's in there altogether, it's my girlfriend's bag."
A large set of bolt cutters was then recovered along with a red screwdriver. The appellant said that he did not know that they were there. The Sentencing Exercise[11]Having set out the facts of the offending the judge said she was going to pass a sentence on the lead offence, which was the theft of the cabling, and pass concurrent sentences on everything else. As to that offence, by reference to the sentencing guidelines, the judge categorised it as category 1 harm, not just because of the value of the cable but also the cost of the repairs and the high degree of additional harm, namely the inconvenience to the public. As to culpability, the judge said it was category A, because of the significant planning, and because it was carried out as part of a group activity. The recommended starting point for such an offence was 3½ years with a range from 2½ to 6 years. The judge identified a notional term of 4 years because of the appellant's antecedent history. To reflect all the remaining offences, the judge increased that term to 6 years. She then gave the appellant maximum credit for his guilty plea thereby reducing the total sentence to one of 4 years' imprisonment.[12]All the other terms of imprisonment, that is to say those imposed for the five counts on indictment ending 425, and the two counts on indictment ending 224, were made to run concurrently. That was despite the fact that those other terms added up to a total of 52 months' imprisonment. The only additional term imposed was the activation of 3 months of a suspended sentence order of which the appellant was in breach. There is no appeal in respect of that 3-month term. The Original Grounds of Appeal[13]Save for one discrete point, to which we shall return in a moment, the grounds of appeal made various points as to categorisation, mitigation and the alike, and submitted that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.[14]The single judge rejected that submission. She said:
"It is arguable that the judge should have placed the theft of cabling within Harm Category 2 for the reasons you give (medium value of goods stolen together with significant additional harm). However, that is a Category that provides a range up to 3 ½ years and you had multiple aggravating factors. You rightly accept that a significant uplift to that sentence would be required to reflect the numerous other offences to which you had pleaded guilty. In those circumstances, and looking at the total sentence passed for all your offending, I would not consider that the sentence was manifestly excessive, even if the judge had made a categorisation error for the lead offence..."
[15]We entirely agree with that analysis. On the information available to the judge, the 4 year notional term for the cable theft was entirely justified, regardless of the precise categorisation. Furthermore, given the extent of the appellant's offending in relation to the Co-op and Tesco stores, to uplift the sentence by only 2 years for all those offences was generous. So thus far there can be no basis for any submission that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Basis of Plea[16]There is a separate and standalone point. It appears that, unknown to counsel on either side and therefore unknown to the court, when the appellant pleaded guilty at the Magistrates' Court to the theft of the cable, he did so on a written basis of plea which he said was accepted. The basis of plea was in the following terms:
"(a) I plead guilty to the theft of cabling on 7/02/2025 on the basis of taking 2 lengths of loose cable from inside 2 builders' bags next to the railway line. (b) This is shown on the mobile phone footage. (c) It was not 'cut and stolen', it was loose (coiled into loops) in 2 bags. The valuation of replacing it mentioned in PC Lance Horsey's s 9 statement of approximately £26,000 is not accepted. The value of the cable itself is not contested (£1.312.50)"
[17]Accordingly the single judge granted leave on the sole ground that the basis of plea should have been considered at the time of sentencing and because it was not, it was something that should now be considered by the full court. The single judge did not express any view as to whether the basis of plea might, of itself, give rise to any modification of the view she had earlier expressed.[18]Of course it is right that, if a defendant pleads guilty on a basis of plea, then it is for the Crown and the court to consider that basis of plea, and to see whether or not it isaccepted. If not, there can be a Newton hearing; if it is, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced on the basis of the agreed document.[19]In our view the basis of plea in the present case needs to be carefully considered. It seems to us it makes two distinct points. The first is that it states that the appellant did not cut and steal the cable, and that it was somehow already "cut" and "loose". That may go to culpability. The second is that the cost of replacing the cable of £26,000 "is not accepted". That may go to harm. Harm[20]We deal with that second point first. No different figure for the cost of replacement was ever provided by the appellant and neither has there ever been any detailed critique of the £26,000. So the basis of plea essentially amounts to no more than putting the Crown to proof of the figure in the relevant police officer's witness statement. If the basis of plea had been before the judge, along with the witness statement as to the cost of replacement, then, in the absence of any alternative figure or any detailed critique of £26,000 there is no reason why precisely the same figure would not have formed the basis of the judge's assessment of harm. Accordingly, the fact that the appellant simply asserted that he did not accept the £26,000 without more is neither here nor there.[21]During the course of her helpful submissions this morning, Ms Rai suggested that there was a possible causation point relating to the £26,000, to the effect that it was not linked to the admitted offending. That point was nowhere set out in the basis of plea so could not have made any difference to the sentencing exercise.[22]But there is a wider point, and so for the avoidance of doubt we should record our agreement with the judge, that theft of railway cable will always involve significant additional harm (as per the guidelines). It inconveniences members of the public and it drives them away from the railway, which is an environmentally sound method of travel, and into their cars, which is not. Deterrent sentences are usually appropriate for such offending. So the suggestion that because the cable was only worth £1,300, that made this a category 3 or possibly a category 2 case, is misconceived. We would conclude that, in the particular circumstances of theft and damage of railway cable, the judge was justified in putting harm into category 1. Accordingly, that element of the basis of plea has no effect on the sentencing exercise carried out by the judge: it makes no difference to the categorisation. Culpability[23]The other point arising from the basis of plea is that the cable was not cut by the appellant. However, it is difficult to see where this goes. The judge categorised this as high culpability (category A). It was not suggested by Ms Rai this morning that the basis of plea justified a lower categorisation of culpability than that taken by the judge, and we would agree with that. Mr Hanlon was discovered burning the cable to remove the identification markings and he was there with numerous tools to facilitate both the cutting and the burning of railway cable. In addition, as the judge said, there was significant planning and offending as part of a group.[24]There is also a separate reason why cases of this sort will almost always be culpability A. One of the factors in the guidelines indicating culpability A is the deliberate targeting of the victim on the basis of vulnerability. Railways are uniquely vulnerable. They comprise thousands of miles of track with fencing but no proper way of being patrolled. It is plain that, in this case, the railway was deliberately targeted and that provides another reason, not identified by the judge, why culpability was properly put in category A.[25]In those circumstances, we conclude that, even having full regard to the basis of plea, the judge's sentencing exercise was entirely sound. The basis of plea makes no difference to the sentences imposed. Moreover, in our view, the sentence could not be described as manifestly excessive in any event. For the reasons that we have given, in the light of all the other offending, we consider that the appellant was dealt with mercifully by the judge.

Disposal

[26]For those reasons, this appeal against sentence 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