{"id":564260,"date":"2026-04-15T03:42:30","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T01:42:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T03:42:30","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T01:42:30","slug":"r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Demi Leigh Greening"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>MR JUSTICE BENNATHAN: 1 On 7\u00a0May 2025 in the Crown Court at Kingston-Upon-Hull, the appellant pleaded guilty to\u00a0offences of\u00a0burglary and fraud. On 27\u00a0August\u00a02025 before HHJ Thackray KC at the same court, the appellant pleaded guilty to\u00a0an offence of\u00a0escape and was sentenced for all three matters as\u00a0follows: for burglary, 45 months&#039; imprisonment; for fraud, 6\u00a0months&#039; imprisonment, concurrent; for escape, 2\u00a0months&#039; imprisonment, consecutive. That gave a\u00a0total effective sentence of\u00a047 months. The judge also made a\u00a0restraining order. 2 The appellant was known to the complainant Maureen Algar, as\u00a0she (the appellant) is a\u00a0former partner of\u00a0the complainant&#039;s housemate Wayne Lightfoot. When Mr\u00a0Lightfoot first moved in with the complainant, the appellant stayed at the property for a\u00a0few nights in\u00a0February\u00a02024. The complainant later asked her to\u00a0leave. On 25\u00a0October\u00a02024 the appellant attended the complainant&#039;s address with two men and asked to be let inside. She was refused entry. The complainant then heard a\u00a0smash to the window and turned to see her housemate Mr\u00a0Lightfoot clearing up glass. The complainant went into the back room to get the ventilator for her inhaler as\u00a0she felt she could not breath. She left Mr Lightfoot attempting to stop the appellant and the two men from entering. The complainant sat on her bed to\u00a0use her inhaler and the appellant walked into her room. The appellant took the complainant&#039;s purse from the coffee table and ran out of the house. The complainant tried to\u00a0chase her, but moved slowly due to her age and her ill-health. 3 Mr\u00a0Lightfoot closed the front door and the complainant called the police. She also contacted her bank, to inform them her purse had been stolen with her debit cards. She was told the bank card had been used twice, along with a\u00a0further failed attempt. The total amount taken was \u00a344.50. The unsuccessful transaction was for \u00a335. Damage to the window was valued by the complainant at \u00a398. 4 The appellant was arrested and gave a\u00a0&quot;no comment&quot; interview. 5 While at court for a\u00a0hearing of the burglary and fraud offences, the appellant jumped out of\u00a0the dock and landed in the main court area, where she was detained by staff. This was the conduct that led to\u00a0the escape charge. 6 The appellant was 26 years old at the time of sentence. She had 18 previous convictions for 34\u00a0offences spanning from\u00a0March\u00a02010 to\u00a0November\u00a02024. These included 12 theft and other similar offences. She had two previous convictions for burglary, both when she was before the youth court, and thus, she qualified for the mandatory minimum of three years under the &quot;three strikes&quot; provisions of section\u00a0314 of\u00a0the Sentencing Act 2020. 7 The Judge did not have the benefit of\u00a0a\u00a0Pre-sentence Report. We have been supplied with a Pre-appeal Report ordered by the Single Judge. It tells of the appellant&#039;s very difficult start in life, the child of parents with drug and alcohol addictions, and her ending up in care. She too went on to\u00a0become addicted to\u00a0drugs. She expressed a degree of remorse for the burglary, though claimed the victims owed her money. She has worked fairly well in various jobs during her time of\u00a0custody and has the possibility of\u00a0a\u00a0stable home with her paternal grandmother on release from custody. 8 The probation officer in a very full and careful report, for which we are very grateful, suggests that release from a\u00a0custodial sentence under post-release licence would provide better supervision (with a\u00a0possibility of\u00a0recall if needs be) than a\u00a0community sentence. The probation officer noted that the appellant&#039;s last Pre-sentence Report had been in September 2020, so some five years before she was sentenced for these matters. 9 Ms Algar, the complainant, made a\u00a0victim impact statement. She struggles with her health and mostly spends her time in bed with breathing difficulties. The burglary broke a\u00a0window she could not afford to have repaired. She felt that the appellant took advantage of\u00a0her, knowing her ill-health, to\u00a0steal from her. 10 In passing sentence, the Judge decided the burglary was category\u00a0A culpability, due to the targeting of\u00a0a\u00a0vulnerable victim, and harm\u00a01\u00a0because of the upset described by Ms\u00a0Algar in her statement and the fact she was on the premises when the burglary took place. That categorisation leads to a\u00a0starting point under the Sentencing Council guidelines of\u00a0three years&#039; imprisonment with a range of two to\u00a0six years. The Judge noted the aggravating factors of the appellant attending the group, the later use of the bank card and her many previous convictions. The Judge noted the two earlier burglary convictions and the consequent three-strike provisions, but said he would give them little weight because the earlier offences were both when the appellant was under 18. He allowed some mitigation for the fact the appellant had &quot;had some difficulties in life&quot;. The Judge decided the least sentence he could impose after trial was five years, that is 60 months, and he then deducted 25\u00a0per\u00a0cent for the guilty pleas at\u00a0the pre-trial preparation hearing, leading to a sentence of 45 months, with a concurrent term for the fraud, as\u00a0we have already described. There are no Sentencing Council guidelines for the offence of escape. The judge passed a\u00a0sentence of\u00a0two months on the basis that the sentence would have been three months after trial, a\u00a0figure already reduced to\u00a0address totality. 11 The grounds of\u00a0appeal argue that the Judge failed to have regard, or at least sufficient regard, to the fact the previous burglary convictions were some years before, when the appellant was a\u00a0youth. The grounds submit further or in the alternative that the sentence passed was manifestly excessive. The criticism that the Judge paid too much heed to\u00a0the youth court convictions can be dealt with shortly. As Judge Thackray said in terms, he did not take those offences very much into account. 12 Looking at the sentence overall, however, we have reached the conclusion that the starting point of\u00a0five years for the burglary was too high. This was a young defendant who had had a desperately hard start in life and struggled with addiction and all the associated problems that brings. The full and grim details of her history are set out in detail in the report ordered by the Single Judge. In addition, although the Sentencing Council guidelines are an invaluable starting point, there are aspects of\u00a0the burglary that are somewhat removed from the normal intrusion into a stranger&#039;s home. The account given by the appellant was of her believing, rightly or wrongly, that she was owed money by one or both of the occupants of the house, and her snatching the purse was by way of\u00a0an unlawful reaction. 13 We do not lay down any matter of\u00a0principle, nor do we belittle the suffering of\u00a0the complainant in this case, a\u00a0woman unable to defend herself or give chase, but it does seem to us that this aspect should have found some place in the Judge&#039;s reasoning. While we have every sympathy for judges in our busy crown courts wanting to get through their many cases, it may be that this case points towards the wisdom of ordering a pre-sentence report, even when custody is inevitable. 14 For all these reasons, we conclude that while the Judge was entitled to go above the three years&#039; starting point, that balancing exercise should not have taken the sentence he would have imposed after trial as\u00a0high as\u00a0five years. 15 We, therefore, quash the sentence of\u00a045\u00a0months for the offence of\u00a0burglary on the basis the sentence after trial could have been four years. We reduce that by the agreed reduction for guilty plea to three years. The other sentences remain as\u00a0they were, leading to\u00a0a\u00a0total sentence of\u00a0three years, two months&#039; imprisonment. To\u00a0that extent and that extent alone, this appeal is allowed __________ 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<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ewca\/crim\/2026\/277\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MR JUSTICE BENNATHAN: 1 On 7 May 2025 in the Crown Court at Kingston-Upon-Hull, the appellant pleaded guilty to offences of burglary and fraud. On 27 August 2025 before HHJ Thackray KC at the same court, the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of escape and was sentenced for all three matters as follows: for burglary, 45 months&#8217; imprisonment; for&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7633,10966,8239,7621,8348],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-564260","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-burglary","kji_keyword-complainant","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R v Demi Leigh Greening - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Demi Leigh Greening\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MR JUSTICE BENNATHAN: 1 On 7 May 2025 in the Crown Court at Kingston-Upon-Hull, the appellant pleaded guilty to offences of burglary and fraud. On 27 August 2025 before HHJ Thackray KC at the same court, the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of escape and was sentenced for all three matters as follows: for burglary, 45 months&#039; imprisonment; for...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Demi Leigh Greening - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-15T01:42:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v Demi Leigh Greening\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Demi Leigh Greening - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Demi Leigh Greening","og_description":"MR JUSTICE BENNATHAN: 1 On 7 May 2025 in the Crown Court at Kingston-Upon-Hull, the appellant pleaded guilty to offences of burglary and fraud. On 27 August 2025 before HHJ Thackray KC at the same court, the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of escape and was sentenced for all three matters as follows: for burglary, 45 months' imprisonment; for...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"7 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/","name":"R v Demi Leigh Greening - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-15T01:42:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-demi-leigh-greening-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v Demi Leigh Greening"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/564260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=564260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=564260"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=564260"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=564260"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=564260"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=564260"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=564260"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=564260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}