R v Thomas 2025
On 5 June 2024, T pleaded guilty to dangerous driving (count 3) in the Crown Court at Nottingham. T was tried on counts 1 (aggravated burglary) and 2 (conspiracy to commit robbery).
The jury acquitted T of count 1 but convicted him on count 2.
On 18 July 2025, T was sentenced to three years six months' imprisonment on count 2 and a concurrent sentence of six months' imprisonment on count 3.
The case involved a break-in to a domestic cannabis factory at 42 Birding Street, Mansfield containing 259 cannabis plants. Prior to 6 May 2024, T's co-accused (Q, E and Y) had communicated via Snapchat to organise stealing the cannabis plants.
Cell site evidence showed T and co-accused travelled from London to Mansfield in the early hours of 6 May 2024 in multiple vehicles. When the property was broken into, Mr Nguyen was asleep downstairs and encountered a black male with his face covered holding a knife to his neck. Multiple males carrying knives and a metal stick entered the property to steal the cannabis plants.
When police arrived, Quarry escaped by getting into a white Vauxhall Zafira driven by T. The Vauxhall Zafira was later seen by police and T drove it dangerously, ignoring a stinger and driving through a red light.
When the vehicle was stopped, T and Q were arrested. A black bag containing a jacket, balaclava and cannabis was recovered along with a taser barb from the vehicle.
T claimed he was homeless and living in the car, and that Q had paid him £500 to drive to Mansfield without explaining why.
The case came to the Court of Appeal as T appealed against his conviction for count 2 with leave of the single judge, arguing the jury had returned a perverse verdict in acquitting on count 1 but convicting on count 2.
Held
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed T's appeal against his conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery (count 2). The Court found no inconsistency in the jury's verdicts of acquitting T of aggravated burglary while convicting him of conspiracy to commit robbery.
The Court found that the allegations in counts 1 and 2, while linked to the same event, had different legal ingredients which were not mutually inconsistent. It was open to the jury to conclude they could not be sure T was aware of the weapons used inside the property (count 1) but could be sure he knew force or violence would be used to steal cannabis plants (count 2).
The Court determined there was sufficient evidence for the jury to properly infer that T had the requisite knowledge for conviction on count 2, and therefore the verdicts were neither inconsistent nor perverse.
The Court determined that the jury had faithfully followed the legal instructions given to them and properly considered the distinct elements of each offence. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that while they could not be sure T knew about weapons being used (required for aggravated burglary), they could be sure he knew force would be used in the robbery.
Therefore, the Court concluded there was no substance to T's complaint and his conviction was safe.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.