R v Gemma Lisa Hindmarch

MR JUSTICE LAVENDER:

1. The appellant appeals with leave granted by the single judge against the sentences imposed on her on 29 August 2025 in the Crown Court at Bournemouth, namely a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment for one count (count 2) of burglary, to which she had pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing in February 2025, and a consecutive sentence of 10 months' imprisonment for one count (count 3) of threatening with a bladed article in a public place, contrary to section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to which she had pleaded guilty on the first day of trial, 16 July 2025.

2. The offences were committed on the evening of 8 August 2024. The appellant broke into a vape shop in Gillingham by smashing a glass panel in the front door. The appellant caused substantial damage in the shop and stole some vapes. The total loss was estimated at around £3,000. An eye witness, whose wife had called the police, chased the appellant, who turned round and pulled out of her bag an axe, which she waved around. The appellant then got into a car and was driven away.

3. When interviewed on 9 January 2025 the appellant said that she could not remember the incident. At that stage she denied that she had been in possession of an axe, but at trial she pleaded guilty to count 3 and so she fell to be sentenced accordingly. The Crown accepted that the appellant brought the axe in order to use it to break into the shop, but she accepted by her plea of guilty that she also used it to threaten the witness.

4. The appellant was 42 when she was sentenced. She had been convicted of 189 previous offences committed between 1998 and 2024. These were mostly shoplifting thefts, but also included offences of battery committed in 2000, 2010 and 2018, robbery in 2016, possession of a bladed article in a public place in 2004 and 2008 and several offences against public order. There were also numerous offences of failing to surrender to bail or to comply with court orders, such as community orders, an antisocial behaviour order and a closure order. Various sentencing options had been tried with the appellant, but she had committed offences while on bail, while subject to a conditional discharge, while subject to a suspended sentence order and while on licence. A sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment imposed in 2017 did not put an end to the appellant's offending behaviour, although it was followed by a reduction in her offending. The present offences were committed while the appellant was subject to a conditional discharge.

5. The pre-sentence report explained that the appellant had had a traumatic childhood, followed by a lifetime struggle with drug addiction and various mental health issues, which had led to her being detained under the Mental Health Act at one stage. Her account of the present offences was that she had been drinking alcohol and that she would not have committed the offences if she had been sober, but that she was motivated by her belief that the owner of the shop had been selling vapes containing cannabis to her 15-year-old nephew.

6. The judge agreed with prosecution counsel that the burglary fell between categories B1 and B2 in the relevant sentencing guideline. The starting point for a category B1 offence is one year's custody, with a range up to two years. The starting point for a category B2 burglary is six months' custody with a range up to one year. The judge placed count 3 in category A2 of the relevant sentencing guideline, with a starting point of 15 months' custody and a range up to two years.

7. The aggravating factors were the appellant's previous convictions, the fact that she was subject to a conditional discharge and on bail, the fact that she was intoxicated, the amount of damage caused and the value of the goods stolen.

8. The mitigating factors were the appellant's difficult childhood, the efforts which she was making to address her drug addiction and her mental health issues.

9. By reason of the appellant's guilty pleas, the judge reduced the sentence on count 2 by one-quarter from 27 months to 20 months and he reduced the sentence on count 3 by one-third from 15 months to 10 months.

10. The reason for the one-third reduction in sentence on count 3 was that count 3 had only been added to the indictment at trial as an alternative to a count (count 1) of aggravated burglary. However, the appellant had had the opportunity from her first appearance in the magistrates' court to indicate an intention to plead guilty to an alternative offence. It follows that she was not entitled to a one-third reduction, although the Crown accepted that she was.

11. The grounds of appeal are that the judge was wrong: to increase the sentence on count 2 above the range in the sentencing guideline; to impose a consecutive sentence on count 3; and to give too much weight to the aggravating factors and/or too little weight to the mitigating factors.

12. In our judgment the judge was entitled to conclude that the aggravating factors significantly outweighed the mitigating factors, such that a significant increase from the starting point for each offence was justified when considering each sentence in isolation. We do not consider that it was wrong in principle for the judge to impose consecutive sentences, but in doing so the judge had to observe the totality principle, to which he did not refer in his sentencing remarks.

13. Having regard to the totality principle, we consider that a total sentence of 42 months' imprisonment before the reductions for the appellant's guilty pleas was too high. We quash the sentence imposed for the burglary and impose instead a sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment for that offence (i.e. 18-months less one quarter). We consider that 18 months before the reduction for the guilty plea is an appropriate sentence having regard to both the categorisation of count 2 as falling between categories B1 and B2 and the need to reflect the significant aggravating factors which, as we have said, considerably outweighed the mitigating factors. 18 months is, we note, halfway between the top of the range for a B1 burglary and the top of the range for a B2 burglary.

14. We leave the sentence on count 3 as it stands. Although the one third reduction for the appellant's guilty plea was unwarranted, some reduction for totality is appropriate. The sentences remain consecutive. The total sentence is now 23 months.

15. We have considered, by reference to the guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences, whether that sentence should be suspended. We have concluded that it should not be. The primary consideration is that the seriousness of the offences means that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody. There is also a history of poor compliance with court orders and the appellant is unlikely to comply in the future. 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: [email protected]