Case No: 200700349/A6 
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Crim 1217
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2 

Date: Tuesday, 8th May 2007
 
B E F O R E:
 
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER  
 
MR JUSTICE MITTING
MR JUSTICE TEARE 
 
- - - - - - - -
R E G I N A 
 
-v- 
 
BRADLEY VINCENT ONFROY 
- - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
A Merrill Communications Company
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - -
 
MR K JONES appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT  

- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MR JUSTICE MITTING:  The appellant is 21.  He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to two offences of burglary and one of attempted burglary and asked for eight other offences of burglary and two of attempted burglary to be taken into consideration.  All were committed between 23rd June and 30th July 2006.  
2.	On 14th December 2006 he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Mitchell, at Derby Crown Court, to a total of 6 years' imprisonment:  3 years' imprisonment consecutive for each of the burglaries, and 2 years concurrent for the attempted burglary.  He was ordered first to serve the unexpired term of 453 days of a sentence of 6 years' detention imposed on 15th November 2002, for two offences of robbery.  Thirty days spent in custody on remand were ordered to count towards his sentence.  
3.	Although only 21 when sentenced, he had 12 previous appearances in the criminal courts for 55 offences, all but the two robberies, of taking or otherwise interfering with or misusing motor vehicles.  He was described by the sentencing judge as "a professional thief" who deliberately targeted other people's motorcars.  
4.	The first offence of burglary for which he was indicted occurred on 23rd June 2006.  At 1.50 am he smashed a glazed panel of the rear patio door of a house in Dronfield, disturbing the occupier, who was watching television but left without taking anything.  He was identified as the perpetrator by DNA left on the butt of a cigarette dropped outside and recovered by the occupier.  When interviewed about this offence he made no comment.
5.	The first of the two burglaries for which he was committed for sentence occurred on 2nd July.  It was typical of his pattern of offending.  At 9.00 pm the appellant took the keys from inside the front of an occupied house and got into and started the MG motorcar standing in the driveway.  One of the occupiers emerged and tried to open the locked door of the MG.  As he did so, the appellant drove off over a neighbour's lawn and through his hedge and across the pavement and into the road. An associate was in the driver's seat of a Mondeo nearby.  The occupier later identified the appellant. 
6.	The second burglary was committed in the early evening of the following day. The appellant smashed the glass of a conservatory and got into an unoccupied house in Newbold, taking the keys to an Audi A4, worth £20,000, parked in the driveway.  He drove off in the car which was subsequently recovered.  The occupier returned to find his conservatory damaged and his car missing. The total cost of repairs to both was about £1400.  
7.	The appellant was identified by a neighbour.  The burglary disturbed the sleep of the occupier, after it had occurred and made up his mind to sell his house.  
8.	The appellant denied these offences when first interviewed but on being reinterviewed, on 29th August 2006, admitted the first of them.  On 30th August he took police to the scenes of ten other offences which he asked to be taken into consideration.  Three involved the theft of car keys and cars and three theft of car keys alone.  
9.	The pre-sentence report described him as posing a high risk of re-offending.  Clearly a substantial sentence of imprisonment was called for.
10.	Mr Jones submits that a sentence beginning with 453 days recall, and concluding with 6 years' imprisonment was too long.  We agree.  Six years' imprisonment was the equivalent of 9 years, after a trial.  Such a term would plainly have been manifestly excessive for these offences.  It is inescapable that the 6 year term was manifestly excessive either because it was based on a starting point too high or because inadequate credit was given for his plea of guilty.  In our view, a total sentence of 4 years' imprisonment was appropriate for the individual indicted offence and those committed for sentence.
11.	The judge was right to order the appellant to serve 453 days before starting that sentence.  We therefore quash the 3 years imposed for the two burglaries and substitute in each case 2 years' imprisonment.  The sentences will still be consecutive.  The total therefore will be 4 years to be served after the 453 days of recall.