Think the punishment should have been greater

[BloodyBosch]

bbc.in/2VtJ3Uj

Hope link works. Carer stole from the family she was working for in their own home

bbc.in/2VtJ3Uj

What do you think should have happened?

As she stole less than £500 and there was no significant harm to the victim she was unlikely to go to prison under current sentencing guidelines. In the circumstances described a high level community order along with paying back the money stolen is what I would expect and that is what she got. As a first offender, prison was unlikely for this offence.

I don't think prison, but she did it twice to a vulnerable family whilst in a position of trust.
I believe that community service should be higher, and then reduced accordingly if the victim receives back the amount that was stolen. From information seen elsewhere it wasn't a first offence either, a name change was done to get through dbs check (which surely shouldn't have been successful)

I can't see anything that suggests it was not a first offence. Yes, she is also known by another name but I can't find any reports online that suggests she had a previous offence or that the name change was for DBS purposes. If you have a link to this, please share it. A previous offence could have pushed this over the line into a custodial sentence as it is an aggravating factor.

The victim will receive the money back. The judge ordered that. Your proposal would allow the offender to choose whether to pay back the victim or do more community service. They should not (and do not) have that choice. They must do both.

The community service ordered is towards the top end of the range for a high level order - the maximum is 300 hours.

The lady that was the victim posted about it publicly on Facebook. The dbs check failure is being looked in to apparently as had she had been linked to the other name she wouldn't have had a clear dbs check.

Also @prh47bridge, thank you for all the information it's very interesting. It must be so difficult to have to have a stranger in your house on a daily basis, and even more so after this.

I've found the Facebook post. It says, "How could la dbs check clear someone sacked from midwifery, caught stealing before I have been told & having 2 names". I suspect that the reason she got a clear DBS check is that she wasn't prosecuted for the previous offence (if there was one - "I have been told" is hardly conclusive proof). That would also be consistent with the sentence she got this time.

There are two other possibilities with the DBS check. It could be that she did get a conviction or accepted a caution but it was long enough ago to mean it has dropped off her DBS - 6 years for a caution, 11 years for a conviction (assuming she was over 18 at the time of conviction). The other possibility is that the information was on her DBS but whoever evaluated the DBS (her employer or the umbrella organisation they use) decided it wasn't relevant. I lean towards there not having been a conviction as the sentence would normally be higher for a second offence, but without knowing all the facts it is impossible to be sure what mitigating and aggravating factors were present.