Tag Archives: Theft

Alan Crickmore – Court of Appeal refuse permission and BBC get it wrong



We çovered the case of Alan Crickmore, the coroner and former solicitor who pleaded guilty to stealing about 2 million pounds from dead clients. When he entered his plea, we predicted (correctly) that he would get hammered, but incorrectly gave a guess of about 5 years.

When he was sentenced, he actually got 8 years. We indicated that we would keep an eye out for an appeal and, on 1st July 2014, the Court of Appeal heard an appeal against sentence. Or at least that’s how the news report reads.

In fact, this was an application for permission to appeal. Openshaw J said that the sentence was ‘just and appropriate’ and refused permission. Mr Crickmore can, and probably will, renew his application to appeal. This means he has an oral hearing before the full court where the court considers again whether he should have permission to appeal. We will have a look if and when this happens.

We originally thought this was a written application (as is common) although someone at the Judiciary very helpfully pointed out that in fact, there was an oral hearing. That said, it was still a permission hearing – not an appeal.

Anyway, the BBC. The headline states “Coroner Alan Crickmore loses appeal to reduce sentence for £2m theft“. For the reasons stated, this is wrong. A better headline would have been “Coroner Alan Crickmore refused permission to appeal sentence for £2m theft“or something like that. Perhaps it is picky…but in law, without detail, we are nowhere.

Rachel Stokes – care home manager jailed for theft

From The Guardian

                       From The Guardian

On 25th April 2014 Rachel Stokes, a 48 year care home manager was jailed for 8 months for stealing from her residents in order to fund her bingo habit. She had siphoned off money (typically £100-200 a time) from seven residents by withdrawing money from their accounts and giving them less than she recorded in the paperwork. The total amount that she took was about £1,000.

The Theft Guidelines would appear to apply to this case. It is theft in breach of trust, and can properly be described as a ‘high breach of trust’. This gives a starting point of 18 weeks and a range of a Community Order up to 12 months in prison.

Here, there was a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, and there should be full credit for that plea. On that basis, the sentence passed was right at the very top of the range.

Is it too high? I would imagine that most people would think that stealing from such vulnerable people is such a disgraceful breach of trust that the sentence is well deserved. Whilst you could argue that, given that Ms Stokes was of good character and will almost certainly not re-offend, a sentence of 6 or 4 months would probably do the trick, I would doubt that any appeal would be successful. In this case, although the sentence is a severe one, it is hard to say that is is manifestly excessive.

Stealing from a bin and the Vagrancy Act 1824

cpsThe men have been charged with an offence under Vagrancy Act 1824 s 4, namely that they were found in an area, Iceland, for an unlawful purpose, stealing food. In fact, it is said that they were taking food items out of a skip, prior to them presumably being thrown away.

The Guardian has a report of the story here, which is worth a read.

UPDATE: There is a press release from Iceland which makes clear they did not call the police and are seeking clarification as to why the CPS believe it to be in the public interest to prosecute.

UPDATE 2: The CPS have confirmed they have dropped the prosecution. See the press statement for details.

There are a number of issues here, which have been discussed in case law, some of it, recent. These include what does ‘found’ mean, what does ‘unlawful purpose’ mean and when does the unlawful purpose need to exist.

Those wishing to do some further reading may want to look at the following cases:

L v DPP 2007 EWHC 1843 (Admin)

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr. App. R. 234

Talbot v DPP [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1102

One interesting point that appears to arise from the Smith case is that the unlawful purpose must be criminal, and not merely a wrongful act such as a tort (e.g. trespass). So consider the situation where the unlawful (criminal) purpose is said to be theft.

Does that then require an evaluation of the offence of theft?

The unlawful purpose of committing theft

Theft Act 1968 s 1 defines theft as ‘dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’. Section 7 sets out the maximum sentence of 7 years for a person convicted of theft.

Sections 2 to 6 define the elements of the offence. All five elements must be proven in order for the offence to be ‘made out’. The only one we are really concerned with is the first.


 A person is not dishonest (for the purposes of theft) if he appropriates the property:

(a) in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

(b) in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c) in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

So there would be problems showing that the ‘thief’ did not believe that they had the consent of either the council responsible for emptying the bin or the supermarket who placed the property into the bin.

So if it cannot be shown that the individuals were in the area specified with the intention of committing a theft (because they believed they had the consent of the owner) then it would appear that they are not guilty of an offence at all.

CPS policy

 A final thought.

The Full Code Test, emlployed by the CPS when deciding whether to charge someone is as follows.

The evidential stage: Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge.

The public interest stage: In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

Perhaps it is necessary to add a third limb to this test – the idiot test: ‘could someone legitimately call me an idiot for pursuing this prosecution?’ It might save a few quid (and keep the naked rambler out of jail too).

Coroner and solicitor Alan Crickmore gets 8 years for ‘theft from the dead’

Taken from BBC News

Taken from BBC News

On 17th October 2013 Alan Crickmore, a coroner (a Judge who is responsible for ascertaining the cause and circumstances of a death, as well as, for historic reasons, dealing with treasure trove) pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to 24 counts of fraud. He was released on bail until the 28th November when he was sentenced.

After the conviction, Dan predicted that Crickmore would get “hammered”, suggesting a sentence of 6 years. On 28 November, Crickmore was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.


Crickmore stole money from clients and the estates of deceased clients. The total value of the thefts was about £2 million.

The BBC reported that the police claimed Crickmore had spent £400,000 on his credit card since 2005, including £45,000 on restaurants, £74,000 on supermarket bills, £33,000 on holidays, and £92,000 of cash withdrawals.

There was a two-year investigation into Crickmore’s solictiors firm which resulted in the closure of the firm. Thereafter however, Crickmore continued to draw a £60,000 salary from the council for sitting as a coroner, even though he was suspended.

One of the counts represented the theft of almost £900,000 from the estate of a deceased man.


The maximum sentence is 10 years.

Crickmore received 8 years. The discount given for pleading guilty is not clear, however there will have been some reduction. That places the starting point towards 10 years, which, even using the fraud guidelines (which tend to have higher sentences than the theft guideline, where offences ‘fit’ into both) is high. This is so, even when taking account of the (massive) breach of trust.

An appeal may well be mounted, given that starting at around 10 years,

The prosecution stated they would be seeking confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to recover about £800,000. This is presumably because although Crickmore benefitted to the tune over almost £2m, he only has £800,000 available to confiscate (why make an order which he cannot pay?).

We’ll keep an eye out for an appeal.

Policeman forges will of 94yo widow to make him main beneficiary

jon webbImage from Daily Mail

Jon Webb, 45, a policeman, pleaded to five counts of theft, five counts of fraud and one of forgery.

He was called to the victim’s home after she had had a fall. She was aged 94 and widowed. He befriended her and volunteered to visit her in hospital. He visited her on more than 30 occasions.

When she had recovered from her fall, the Daily Mail reported that he ‘gained access to her bank accounts, set up internet banking and applied for a credit card. He closed down a pension account so he could access her life savings.’

He also typed a false will on the victim’s typewriter (the forgery) making him the main beneficiary of her (approximate) £400,000 estate. Additionally, he had stolen a box of war medals (theft)

The prosecutor said: ‘She does not fully understand why the defendant has done this to her. It is very hard for her now to trust anyone.

‘The defendant preyed upon her vulnerability, she trusted him as a friend. She trusted the defendant because he was a policeman and said it is his job to look after people like her.’

Webb’s downfall came as a result of suspicion that he was responsible for another offence – the theft of £1,000 and $500 which had been recovered after a burglary.

It was reported that he resigned from the police in May 2013 after a 20-year career in the force.


Sentencing, Judge Guy Kearl QC said: ‘You have brought disgrace upon yourself and upon the police service for whom you served many years and you have undermined the public confidence in our police service.

‘I am satisfied once you had seen her [the victim] you had selected her as your prey and then you committed sophisticated and planned acts of fraud and theft on a frail and confused elderly lady.’

He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. He will serve 3 years in custody and 3 years on licence.

It is likely that the judge considered the Fraud guidelines, for the main offences of fraud. The theft guideline may also have been of some assistance for the other offences.

There may well have been consecutive sentences for some offences, where for example they were not a part of the same set of offending (e.g. the theft of the £1,000 and $500 recovered from a burglary). What is important however is whether the overall total adequately reflects the offending.

Assuming there was an early guilty plea, the judge started at 9 years, or perhaps slightly more. The aggravating features would have been most certainly the high degree of breach of trust and the targeting of a vulnerable victim. It also appears that this was planned and somewhat sophisticated in its execution.

There is an argument to say that the loss of Webb’s career in the police force should make for some mitigation (there have been cases in the past where courts have reduced sentences on the basis that a consequence of the conviction has been that the defendant would lose their professional career) however by starting at 9 years, it appears such a proposition, if made, had little impact on this judge.

Stealing from your employer? Don’t call yourself “mybossisanumpty” and sell your wares on Ebay

Who could resist a story about a thieving employee who got caught? Well, the Daily Mail and UKCriminalLawBlog certainly couldn’t. Enter “mybossisanumpty”. A surprising Ebay name you might think, particularly if the owner of said name is selling off goods allegedly to have been stolen from his employer.

This item, sold on eBay, is one of several which an employee stole from hardware retailer Norman Precision

Investigations are still ongoing but we’re told that a number of stolen items belonging to hardware retailer Norman Precision have been found being sold on Ebay by mybossisanumpty.

An officer dealing with the investigation is purported to have confirmed that on 16th August a 54 year-old man from Stroud was arrested on suspicion of theft and has been bailed until 4th October pending further enquiries.

It’s said that the sales have been ongoing for over two years, with mybossisanumpty receiving excellent feedback from buyers.

If the matter does get to Court we’ll update this post. In the meantime; you have been warned. This is how not to steal from your employer.

The Daily Mail article is here. Unfortunately there are no comments from angry readers as of yet, but it’s only a matter of time.
The author of this post is self-employed and admits regularly stealing pens from her home study to use in her kitchen. She is yet to progress to Ebay selling.

It’s a fox, honest gov’ – Three sentenced for taking a badger


Bodger (left) and badger (right) (Tumbler)

A bit of an unusual one at first glance, three men were convicted of offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Act states:

1Taking, injuring or killing badgers.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, a badger.

The three men, Shaun Dixon, 25, Anthony Dowell, 24, and Nathan Moorhead, 18, were seen putting live badger in the back of a van.

There is an exception to the offence under section 1(1) where the defendant is able to show that his action – taking the badger in this case – was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property. That does not appear to have been an issue here.

The maximum sentence is 6 months and/or a £5,000 fine.

Dixon and Dowell received 140-day sentences, Moorhead received a 60-day sentence (presumably because of his age).


Why are we hearing about this? Well they appealed against their conviction (and sentence it seems). Before two lay magistrates and a Crown Court judge, the three men sought to show that the animal they put into the back of their van was in fact a fox and not a badger. This would have resulted in their convictions being overturned.

The Judge reportedly told the three that he and the two magistrates simply did not believe their story. Their convictions would stand.

Regarding their sentence, the Judge reportedly said that the custodial terms were inappropriate and that they would be sentenced on 19 July at which point they would probably be given community orders.

It is presumed that they were granted bail following their conviction and sentence and so haven’t spent any time in custody.