Crime Solicitors

By Yinny Yu

This case involved an organised gang, who stole cars to order over a relatively wide geographical area covered, between March/April 2011. All the thefts had a similar modus operandi in that the victims arrived at leisure centres in vehicles and unbeknownst to them, their lockers would be broken into whilst they were either swimming or in the midst of their recreation. The owner would return, upon which discover their belongings strewn all over the changing room, and their wallets, cards, money and car keys missing. By the time it was made aware to members of staff, the defendants have already long gone.

The youngest defendant in this case (‘X’) was sentenced to 8 months custody - 4 months in a secure unit and 4 months on licence, for Theft of motor vehicles and Going Equipped to steal vehicles, amounting to approximately £200,000. The irony being that he is only 14 years old and not yet eligible to obtain a driver’s licence. When asked if he could drive, he replied “No comment”.

Upon sentencing, Judge DJ Wrights stated that:

"Each of the 14 crimes to be dealt with has more than one victim. There is the owner of the vehicle and insurers. Each of the victims would be devastated by the loss and inconvenience that follows – not just in the immediate aftermath, but in negotiating with their insurance companies trying to recover their appropriate value. The total emotional strife these offences caused would have been enormous. It has been suggested to me that that X was pressurised by his uncle and others into committing these offences. Whilst I am certain there must have been others involved and these vehicles were stolen to order as part of what amounts to a large scale conspiracy, I am not convinced that that X was an unwilling participant.

X suggests that he was threatened and 2 TIC’s came to light in view of his admissions to the police…….

…….there can be no doubt that the planned and calculated way these offences; their targeted nature; the overall loss both financially and emotionally to the victims, means that the culpability and harm involved is high. These offences cumulatively cross the custody threshold by a considerable way.

As a first time offender before the court under age 15, I have to consider if X is a persistent offender, bearing in mind the following, I say he is:

1. Total number of offences is 14.
2. 3 of the offences were committed after X was bailed in connection with the first 4 offences.

3. The case of Charlton v Smith allows me to take into consideration/account that X appeared on one occasion on a large number of cases in determining that he is a persistent offender.

In sentencing, I have regard to the welfare principal and to prevent commission of further offences. In my view, bearing in mind the nature and number of offences before me, this can only be met in secure of X’s future with a deterrent sentence."

Some may be of the view that perhaps a referral order with a rehabilitative punishment element would be more apt, as a custodial sentence would place him in an environment of experienced offenders which may reinforce a pro-criminal lifestyle, but taking into account the level of planning and the quantity of cars stolen within a short space of time, and fragility of his circumstances, it would seem that there is a medium risk of re-offending.