The Court of Appeal has upheld a three-year prison sentence imposed on Kathleen Stokes for possessing stolen property, finding the sentence proportionate to the offence and her circumstances.
Stokes appealed the severity of the sentence. She was convicted on 10 November 2017 under section 18 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001 and sentenced on 21 November to three years’ imprisonment, backdated to 1 May 2017.
The appeal raised four grounds: that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered mitigation or rehabilitation, had taken account of inappropriate matters, and had imposed a disproportionate sentence.
The Court of Appeal noted mitigation put forward at sentencing, including Stokes’s anxiety and depression, a history of self-harm and suicidal thoughts, the effect of imprisonment on her three children, and her lack of convictions for serious similar offences since 2005. The court said little weight could be given to her expression of remorse because it came after she had contested the case at trial.
The appeal court criticised aspects of the sentencing hearing. It said the judge’s remarks about a mental health report prepared by John Walsh of the Healthy Minds project could give the impression he was not properly engaging with submissions made in mitigation. The court said a judge may take a sceptical view of mitigation evidence but should not create an impression of prejudice against the accused. It also described the tone of exchanges about a change in Stokes’s legal team during the trial as “somewhat disquieting”.
However, the court said the sentencing judge had considered rehabilitation and that Stokes’s apology after a contested trial could reasonably be viewed as self-serving and of limited value. It also noted the seriousness of the offence, her 32 previous convictions, and that she had been arrested close to the premises from which a safe had been removed while accompanied by two children, one her son and one her nephew. The court said the case would have required a custodial sentence.
Stokes did not challenge the sentencing judge’s assessment of a three-year headline sentence for the offence itself. The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence was proportionate and declined to interfere. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful.