Serial shoplifter who judge freed on appeal - Stuart Coventry from Thatcham - is back in court

A SERIAL shoplifter who successfully appealed against a jail sentence has been back in the dock – for more theft offences.

Stuart Coventry appeared at Reading Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, July 2.

The 39-year-old, of Urquhart Road, Thatcham, admitted stealing food worth £13.40 from Costa in Thatcham on March 22.

He further admitted stealing food worth £22.20 from the same shop on April 14.

Adam Yarr-Khan, prosecuting, said: “On both occasions he left the store in the Kingsland Centre in Thatcham making no attempt to pay.

“The sad thing is, this wasn’t theft for resale – he stole because he was hungry.

“I’m not going to ask for costs or compensation in the circumstances because I’m not sure he has the means to pay.

“Rather, I think he needs help.”

The court heard Coventry has 18 previous convictions, primarily for theft offences.

On May 7, a district judge sitting at the same court had sentenced Coventry to eight weeks imprisonment for a recent bout of shoplifting involving hundreds of pounds worth of goods.

The immediate custodial sentence was necessary, said the judge, “because the defendant has a flagrant disregard for people and their property, has no remorse [and because of his] lack of response to previous sentences.”

But Simon Hammudi, defending, told magistrates at Wednesday’s hearing: “On May 15 my client appealed that sentence at the crown court and the appeal was successful.”

Coventry had persuaded the appeal court judge that his prison sentence was excessive.

He was re-sentenced to a 15-month community order instead and banned from entering Tesco Express in Northfield Road, Thatcham.

Mr Hammudi pointed out that the current offences pre-dated the May ones for which he had been briefly imprisoned.

He added: “He was homeless at the time of the offences and stole food to eat.

“He was in prison for eight days [before being released on appeal]; these offences could have been dealt with all at the same time.”

He suggested a “short conditional discharge” would be the most appropriate sentence.

Magistrates obviously concurred: Coventry was made subject to a six-month conditional discharge.

No order was made for costs because of his lack of means to pay.

However, Coventry was required to pay £20 in compensation to Costa in lieu of an otherwise statutory victim services surcharge.