Canterbury Crown Court heard it was at about 10pm when the crooks were said to have “impulsively” used a rock found nearby to smash entry through a glass pane of a side entrance door, causing £360 worth of damage.
Everitt’s DNA was found at the scene and Darling was identified from CCTV footage.
Although both subsequently gave ‘No comment’ interviews to police and were initially due to stand trial in June last year, they later admitted their guilt.
In the meantime, however, 28-year-old Everitt, of Cornes Close, Willesborough, committed another burglary, this time at The Hooden Bar and Grill in Ashford on March 13, 2024.
It was reported alcohol was stolen and, in October last year, magistrates ordered he pay compensation of “a few hundred pounds”, it was said, by way of punishment.
However, it was not until Thursday, September 4, that Everitt, who has other convictions for shoplifting and drug offences, appeared for sentencing in relation to the Boots break-in.
Alongside him in the crown court dock was 51-year-old Darling, who has 31 convictions for 53 offences, including three for burglary, and also theft of a bike worth £1,200 from outside a Cancer Research UK shop in March 2023.
But in deciding the appropriate penalties for the pair, Judge Simon Taylor KC said he was prepared to give them the chance to put their criminal ways behind them.
Everitt, it was said, had been engaging with addiction support charity Forward Trust, while Darling, who was a neighbour of Everitt’s at the time but has since moved to Maidstone, had reunited with his family.
It was also noted that he had served the equivalent of almost 11 months while on remand.
Sentencing them, the judge said: “I am actively reassured you both do want to put your criminality behind you.
“Whether you are both capable of that, only time will tell, but I’m going to give you the opportunity to do so.”
Darling was jailed for nine months, meaning he was likely to be immediately released due to time served.
But Judge Taylor pointed out to him that he was “experienced enough and old enough” to take any rehabilitation opportunities offered while on licence and 12 months’ post-sentence supervision.
“You have very extensive previous convictions indicative of a man who struggles through adult life,” he added, “and I do hope you have benefited from the period in custody and don’t reoffend.”
Everitt was handed a four-month jail term suspended for 12 months, with a one-month electronically-tagged curfew instead of an unpaid work requirement due to his poor physical health.
But in imposing that restriction between 12noon and 4am daily, Judge Taylor said: “The purpose of the sentence is rehabilitation but you do need to be punished and you cannot get away scot-free for this behaviour, hence why I’m looking at the curfew.
“What I want to achieve is as close to house arrest as I can for a period of one month so you have to stay indoors and realise your liberty can be taken away from you.
“That is harsh, but I cannot punish you in the community.”
Judge Taylor had wanted to impose a 20-hour curfew but was informed by Everitt’s defence barrister Nathan Fitzpatrick that the maximum number of hours allowed in law over a seven-day period was 112, the equivalent of 16 hours daily.
