A thief jailed for eight years for a series of offences has had his sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal.

Joeshun Russell, 40, pleaded guilty to charges of burglary, obtaining property by deception, making and using a false instrument and taking a scooter without consent, all relating to an incident that took place between October 2013 and March 2014.

The court heard that on October 7, 2013, around a month after being released from prison in September 2013, Russell stole jewellery from a home, entering by breaking a rear door.

On February 24, 2014, Russell stole a Yamaha scooter from a parking lot. He admitted removing the vehicle’s licence plate and replacing it with his own, throwing the original plate in a pond.

A month later, on March 22, Russell broke into a Devonshire home and stole a gold chain and some rings, which he sold.

Russell also admitted entering a Smith’s home through an unlocked window and stealing a chequebook, using one cheque to obtain $870 in cash, and stealing another chequebook from St John’s Preschool.

In total, he was said to have obtained around $7,000 in goods.

After Russell pleaded guilty to the offences, Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves sentenced him to eight years behind bars — a term consisting of consecutive five- and three-year sentences.

However, concerns were expressed about the decision to implement consecutive sentences and the Court of Appeal was not persuaded that there was an appropriate reason for the judge to do so.

An extempore judgment by the appeal panel stated: “What he ought to have done was to have formed a view as to the appropriate total sentence in the circumstances and passed that concurrently on all the offences save for the offence of taking the vehicle without consent where the maximum penalty is two years imprisonment and the judge, by a slip, passed a sentence of three years which was in the circumstances, therefore unlawful.”

The panel found that the offences constituted a “spree”, motivated by Russell’s need to feed his drug addiction. Noting his long history of criminal offences and addiction, the panel found that a sentence of six years in prison would be appropriate given all the circumstances.

“We have considered whether it might be appropriate to impose an additional period of probation,” the judgment continued. “But we think in the light of the sentence of six years, that would not be appropriate in this case, but we do urge the authorities endeavour to give the appellant whatever assistance they can to deal with his drug addiction both when he is in prison and when he is eventually released.”