R v Dean Brown [2026] EWCA Crim 898

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 898IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISIONON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SALISBURY(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BROMIGE) (54ES0712025,54ES0210325, 54ES0215525, 54ES0217225, 54ES0259425,54ES0279325, 54ES0356725, 54ES0563425, 54ES0158725)Case No 202601038 A5Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Wednesday 24 June 2026
Before
SENIOR PRESIDENT OF TRIBUNALS(Lord Justice Dingemans)MR JUSTICE GARNHAMRECORDER OF LINCOLN(His Honour Judge Hirst)
Between
REXCrownv
Between
DEAN BROWN__________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)_________MS JULIET OSBORNE appeared for Appellant_________J U D G M E N T
[1]On 1 July 2025 at Salisbury Magistrates’ Court, Dean Brown, the appellant, pleaded guilty to a series of offences of theft from shops. On 4 October 2025 at Swindon Magistrates’ Court, he pleaded guilty to a further series of shoplifting charges. On 16 January 2025 at Salisbury Magistrates’ Court, he pleaded guilty to a yet further series of thefts.[2]On 20 January 2025 at Swindon Magistrates’ Court, he was committed for sentence in respect of all those offences. On 20 February 2026 in the Crown Court at Salisbury (before His Honour Judge Bromige) he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment concurrent for each offence. On 11 March 2026, at a hearing pursuant to s.385 of the Sentencing Act 2000, the sentence was confirmed.[3]The appellant's co-defendant, Jodie Brown, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for similar offending. The Facts[4]The appellant and his wife, Jodie Brown, committed a number of theft from shops over the 15-month period from 2 October 2024 to 17 January 2026. The appellant pleaded guilty to 19 counts of shoplifting from shop premises operated by B&Q, Spar, WH Smith, One Stop Community Shop, the Co-op, Marks and Spencer, Lidl, Aldi, and, on a large number of occasions, from the Four Acres Connect/BP Garage. There were in total 28 individual instances of theft. Both the appellant and his co-defendant were on police bail from 22 April 2025 and many of the offences were committed while they were on bail. The total value of goods stolen attributed to the appellant was £2,113.90. For Jodie Brown the total came to £3,522.46.[5]The appellant, who was aged 46 at the time of the sentence now under appeal, had 39 convictions for 88 offences spanning from 7 August 1997 to 2 October 2024. He had multiple previous theft and kindred offence convictions. Ms Brown was aged 28 at sentence. She had 6 convictions for 8 offences spanning from 18 October 2012 to 2 October 2024. She had one relevant previous conviction for theft. The Sentencing[6]On sentencing the appellant on 20 February 2026, the judge applied the general sentencing guidelines for theft. He held that the offences fell into culpability A of those guidelines because of the number of offences. As to harm, he noted the effect of the appellant's conduct on the businesses and the value of the goods stolen and concluded that the case fell into harm category 3. Under those guidelines, the starting point for a Category 3A case was 1 year and the range 26 weeks to 2 years. He adopted 22 months as his starting point for the appellant and Mrs Brown.[7]He took into account the appellant's lengthy history of previous convictions and concluded he was "an entrenched criminal". He took "judicial notice of the wider impact that such prolific shoplifting has on the community". He said that the appellant had "little by way of positive mitigation", but he noted that now he had his driving licence back he had prospects of employment with a roofing company and was able to point to periods of stability when he was not involved in criminality. He said that the sentence after trial would have been above the guideline range of 30 months' imprisonment. He allowed one-third credit for plea.[8]When sentencing the appellant's co-defendant Jodie Brown, he adopted the same "category starting point" of 22 months. He referred to the steps she had taken to better herself, noting that she been able to find work, had been clean of drugs for some years and had not misused alcohol since a conviction in 2022. He said he had also read "the reference from the Nelson Trust which highlights that you are engaging with them positively whilst on remand". He concluded that that, taken with her difficult and deprived background, constituted significant mitigation. He concluded that "notwithstanding the prolific nature of your offending, a slight downward adjustment is appropriate. So the sentence after trial would have been 18 months' imprisonment. You are entitled to one-third credit, which means the sentence is 12 months' imprisonment" in respect of the co-defendant.[9]On 11 March 2026, at a slip rule hearing, the judge acknowledged that he had applied the general guidelines for theft and had not explained why he used those guidelines rather than the specific guidelines for thefts from a shop or a stall. He said he had used the latter guidelines because the "sheer scale" of the thefts in the present case lifted this case out of the allocation for "simple shoplifting". He went onto explain that:
"If I'm wrong on that, however, the categorisation on the shoplifting guidelines, taking as we did all of the offences together … would have placed this within high culpability in category 1, given the cumulative value of the goods stolen. A category 1A starting point on those shoplifting guidelines has a starting point of 6 months' custody with an upper range of 3 years, and that is based on high value of goods above £1,000 stolen, and so the starting point within the category, before getting to aggravating or mitigating factors for both Defendants, would have been above that 26-week custody point and then applying, as I did, those aggravating and mitigating factors in terms of an upward adjustment for Mr Brown, a downward adjustment for Mrs Brown, that means that the sentence that was imposed still falls within the category 1A on the shoplifting guidelines and would have arrived at a very similar, or indeed near identical, sentence."
Submissions[10]It was argued by Ms Osborne in her singularly clear and helpful submissions on behalf of the appellant that the sentence was manifestly excessive for the following reasons: 1) Insufficient regard was had to the principle of totality, given the excessively high starting point. 2) The Judge applied the Theft - general guideline instead of the Theft from a shop or stall guideline. 3) The Judge referred to the "wider impact" of the offending without evidence. 4) The Judge imposed a sentence significantly longer than that imposed on Jodie Brown, who was sentenced for 21 offences compared with the appellant's 19 offences. The value of her overall offending was higher than his. Discussion[11]As the Single Judge remarked, it was unfortunate that the Judge initially sentenced the appellant by reference to the general Theft Sentencing Guideline rather than the offence specific guidelines, namely the Guideline for theft from a shop or stall. The latter are the appropriate guidelines for shoplifting even if that offending is repeated.[12]It is right to say that the offence specific guideline does not identify expressly the appropriate approach to an offender with repeat offences. But that is not unusual. It is a matter of general principle that culpability is increased by repeat offending. We agree with the Single Judge that the Judge was entitled, as he did in his remarks at the slip rule hearing, to treat this case as falling within Category A High Culpability of the offence specific guidelines by reason of the repeat offending.[13]The harm category was Category 1 given the total value of the goods involved and the effect on the shopkeepers’ businesses. The frequent nature of the particular offending and the extent of the harm does not govern just the category range that applies, but also where in that range the particular case falls. In our view, the offending here would justify a sentence significantly above the starting point identified in the guidelines. The Judge was entitled to conclude, taking into account totality, that 22 months was the appropriate figure before aggravating and mitigating factors are considered.[14]The Judge was right to identify as a serious aggravating feature the fact that most of the index offences were committed whilst on bail. It is also to be noted that the appellant was much the older of the two defendants. The Judge also noted, correctly, that the appellant’s mitigation was very limited. In our view, the aggravating features comfortably outweighed what mitigation there was and the appropriate sentence before plea was 30 months. Allowing credit for plea produces a final sentence of 20 months, the figure adopted by the Judge.[15]As to the final ground of appeal, Ms Osborne points to the different treatment of the appellant and his co-defendant. In our view, the fact that the value of the goods involved in her offending were significantly greater than those in the appellant's case justified some increase from the starting point in her case, but the matters referred to by the Judge as mitigation in Ms Brown's case justified a significant reduction in her sentence. In our view, the difference in outcome between the cases of Ms Brown and the appellant was entirely justifiable given the difference in their respective cases.[16]In those circumstances, this 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