Ipswich duo convicted of burgling newsagents and stealing cigarettes
- Credit: Archant
Two men are today facing the prospect of jail for breaking into an Ipswich newsagents and stealing cigarettes.
Glynn Davis, 34, and Shaun Gull, 45, both admitted burgling the College Convenience Store, in Fore Street, when they appeared before magistrates on Monday.
Davis also admitted separate charges of stealing five bottles of Jack Daniel’s and Grant’s whisky from Sainsbury’s on April 8 and 9.
The pair, both residents of the Salvation Army hostel, were seen breaking into the newsagents by a security guard working nearby last Saturday.
Prosecutor Tess Mann said Gull was witnessed standing pressed against a broken window with his arms inside the shop.
You may also want to watch:
When police arrived, he dropped a bag and ran off, before being quickly caught up with – while his accomplice ran from the back of the shop, but was apprehended by other officers based on his description.
Close to Davis was a bag containing cigarettes. He was also wearing one of a pair of gloves – the other found back at the newsagents.
- 1 Suffolk-based former Marine found dead after 10-month disappearance
- 2 Film crews shooting new Netflix film in Suffolk village
- 3 Matchday Recap: It rains goals at Portman Road as Town hit six
- 4 Two mega prisons for 3,500 inmates set to be built near RAF base
- 5 Delays on Orwell Bridge near Ipswich
- 6 Overturned trailer causing delays on roundabout near Bury St Edmunds
- 7 Air ambulance called to incident on Bury St Edmunds estate
- 9 Rovers bottom, Town starting to click, key men back... is this the night?
- 10 'They walked into us heavy' - Cook on 6-0 thrashing of Doncaster
Both men tested positive for Class A drugs following their arrests.
At the time of the burglary, Gull was serving a suspended six-week prison sentence, while Davis was subject to being recalled to prison following his release on licence from a 32-month term.
The prosecution argued that magistrates should commit sentencing to the greater powers of the crown court.
Dino Barricella, representing both men, suggested the bench had scope to maintain jurisdiction, due to the starting point for sentencing falling within their sentencing powers.
“I expect there to be an upward adjustment for their previous dishonesty matters,” he added.
“But I suggest it should be countered by them being afforded the maximum credit for their prompt guilty pleas at the first time of asking.”
Magistrates agreed with the prosecution and sent the pair to crown court for sentencing at a date to be confirmed.
They also agreed both should be remanded in custody, due to substantial grounds for belief they would commit further offences, despite Mr Barricella arguing in favour of strict bail conditions for his clients, who had recently making efforts to engage with probation and drug rehabilitation services.