No: 200401831/A0 
Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWCA Crim 2334
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2 

Thursday, 5th August 2004
 
B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE ROSE
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division) 

MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY 
 
MR JUSTICE PITCHERS 

- - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

-v- 

DARREN JOHN GALLAGHER
 
 - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -
MR G SHORT appeared on behalf of the APPLICANT
 - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	Mr Justice Pitchers: On 8th March 2004 at the Crown Court in Leicester, this applicant pleaded guilty to five offences of theft and three of obtaining property by deception.  On the same day His Honour Judge Stokes QC passed a total sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment.
2.	Leave having been refused by the single judge, the applicant seeks to renew his application for leave to appeal to the Full Court.
3.	These offences stretched over a period of almost three years during which time the applicant had deliberately targeted, deceived and stolen from elderly people by posing as a gardening contractor.  He chose one of two methods of relieving them of their money.  He would either use the opportunity of pretending to offer to do gardening work for them to steal from their houses or purses whilst their attention was distracted, or he would make bogus charges for work he had no intention of doing and insist on payment in advance.  He then would leave without doing the work.
4.	The offences ranged in date from 30th November 1999 to 27th August 2002.  The ages of the occupants ranged from 61 to 89.  The sums of money stolen or obtained by deception ranged from £70 to £2,500.  The offences were committed in different parts of the Midlands. 
5.	When he was first arrested, he denied the offences and asked for identification parades to be conducted.  He knew, of course, that his victims were elderly and that he had a fighting chance that they would not pick him out.
6.	The applicant is 34 years old.  He had previous convictions for dishonesty, but none remotely as serious as these.
7.	The judge in passing sentence said this:
"I will tell you why you were not arrested before November last, you were not arrested because you specialise in defrauding the elderly and the vulnerable, as was demonstrated by your attitude when you were arrested when you demanded that these elderly people should come to the police station and seek to identify you. 
People like you are a plague on the vulnerable and the elderly and when you are caught, as you have been, and the extent of your criminality is revealed, then it is the duty of the court not only to punish you, but to deter others from behaving in this quite wicked way. 
You have obtained or stolen from elderly and vulnerable people thousands of pounds.  I have no doubt whatsoever that on some occasions at least, as is evident from the papers, you have caused them considerable and continuing distress, and you knew exactly what you were doing. 
When the moment arose, or the opportunity arose, for you to steal from these elderly people, that is precisely what you did, and you were quite content on two occasions to steal thousands of pounds from these people. 
Anyone who behaves like that towards the elderly and the vulnerable deserves to be locked up for a long time, and that is exactly what is going to happen to you.  You deserve some credit for your pleas of guilty, but not much."
8.	Counsel on behalf of the applicant, Mr Short, complains that that last sentence indicates that the learned judge gave insufficient credit for a plea of guilty.  The sentence of four and a half years looks very much as if it represents a sentence of six years, discounted by 25 per cent for the plea of guilty, and on that basis a proper discount was given.
9.	So far as the rest of the sentencing remarks are concerned, with every word of that we agree.  This sort of offending, where elderly people are targeted because of their vulnerability, is amongst the most serious that can be committed where violence is not actually used.  The harm done to the quality of life of the victims by the fear and anxiety these offences cause far exceeds the monetary value to the defendant of the thefts, although the sums of money, sometimes modest, may be very significant indeed to the particular victims.  A substantial sentence, both as punishment for the serious offending and as a clear indication to the defendant and others who might be tempted to commit these offences that if they do so substantial punishment will follow, is always required.
10.	The sentences passed in this case were, in our judgment, amply justified.  This application is refused.