JUST HOW DOES HE GO FREE?
Caught in a care home dragging a TV – which he had nicked – in a duvet – which he had also nicked – yet criminal with 133 previous convictions walks free as judge blasts prosecutors’ decision
A serial thief who broke into a residential care home has walked free from court after judge slammed a decision by prosecutors not to charge him with domestic burglary.
William Napier would have been looking at a three -year minimum sentence as a “three strike burglar” had he been convicted of raiding a dwelling.
Newcastle Crown Court heard as well as entering communal areas, he was said to have entered a bedroom and taken a duvet with which to transport the goods he had stolen.
But the CPS decided to charge Napier, who has 133 previous convictions, with a non-dwelling burglary following his late night raid at a care home for vulnerable elderly people in Byker, Newcastle.
That meant the sentencing powers of the court were significantly reduced and instead of getting three years, Napier is now back on the streets.
Judge Simon Batiste, at Newcastle Crown Court, said: “So the Crown suggest a residential care home, in the communal area and getting something from a bed to drag those items out, is not a dwelling?”
When told that was the view taken by a CPS reviewing lawyer, the judge said: “I make it clear it’s not a view I share.
“I find it a remarkable decision bearing in mind he is a third strike burglar.”
It was just after 11pm on July 28 that Napier entered the Balmoral Court care home, in Byker, through a broken window.
Prosecutor Kevin Wardlaw said he visited a number of rooms and took a duvet from a bed.
He said: “He was detained in the process of dragging the duvet, containing a TV, through the premises.
“He had also placed a number of other items nearby which he had taken, including a parcel, ornaments, cheque book and briefcase.”
Napier was stopped by staff and arrested. He admitted responsibility to the police and blamed valium, saying he had no recollection of the break-in.
The court heard that 100 of his 133 previous offence are for acquisitive crime, including a number of domestic and nondomestic burglaries.
Sentencing him, Judge Batiste said: “The Crown have taken the view the property you burgled doesn’t amount to a dwelling house, despite it being a care home at which people are resident and you having taken something from one of the bedrooms in order to try to take away the items.
“I’m bound, therefore, to sentence on the basis of the charge but it’s not something I’m particularly happy about.
“Of course, if this were regarded as a dwelling house you would fall well within the minimum term provisions.”
The judge added: “This was, whatever label is attached to it, a mean and deeply unpleasant offence.
“Breaking into a residential care home is a really appalling crime, stooping to absolutely the bottom of the barrel.
“This was for old people with mental problems and challenging behaviour and you were walking round, at least the communal areas, at night.”
Liam O’Brien, defending, said: “The defendant has an absolutely horrendous record of offences and his problem since he was in his teens or early 20s is drugs.
“He says when he was 19 he was involved in a bad car accident and his best friend died. He was given a high dose of valium and it just led to a path of him getting addicted to mind-altering substances.
“He has been struggling but doing quite well to get his addiction under control. It’s difficult to kick a habit of a lifetime. While it’s his fault, it’s difficult for him.”
The court heard Napier had been assessed as suitable for a drug rehabilitation requirement.
Judge Batiste said: “It’s difficult for me to now say I’m not going to give you that chance.
“I’m going to, with huge reservations, give you a chance today.”
When asked by if he wanted a written explanation about the charging decision by management at the CPS, the judge said: “I’m not asking for a written explanation, I’m asking for a review to take place to ensure we are not in that position again.”
A CPS spokesman said: “In this case, the communal areas of the residential home were not legally classed as residential for the purposes of the charging decision.
“When Napier was apprehended he was in possession of items from the communal area of the home and other items, initially thought to have belonged to one of the residential bedrooms. However, when police re-visited the home, staff were unable to say whether Napier had actually entered any of the private bedrooms at the property to obtain these items and no forensic evidence of his presence in the residential areas of the building was detected.
“While we appreciate the significant difference in sentencing powers between residential and nonresidential burglary, we can only provide charging advice appropriate to the available evidence in any case.”