Regina v Crimes

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant entered late guilty pleas to five offences charged across three indictments. On 19 November 2018, the Appellant was sentenced to a total of 6 years and 6 months' imprisonment by the Crown Court at Manchester. The Appellant now appeals against this sentence by leave of the single judge.

On 1 January 2018, a Nissan Qashqai was stolen in Liverpool, followed by the theft of a Ford Focus on 4 January 2018 from the same area. Both vehicles were fitted with false registration plates. The Qashqai was stopped by police in Manchester on 10 January 2018, with the Appellant as a passenger.

On 3 and 4 February 2018, the Ford Focus was used in a plan orchestrated by an organised crime group to "kneecap" a man named Thomasson in Manchester. The shooting was successfully carried out by an unidentified gunman. Afterward, the Ford Focus was driven to a woman's residence, where she arranged a taxi for the gunman and driver back to Liverpool. The stolen Ford Focus was then set on fire near her address by the Appellant using a substantial quantity of accelerant.

Other individuals involved include Robinson, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy offences and received a sentence of 14 years and 3 months, and Cooper, who pleaded guilty to assisting an offender and received a suspended sentence. The gunman and his driver remain unidentified.

On 21 May 2018, police arrested the Appellant at his home, finding him with another man, Maddix, both in possession of amphetamine. Additional drugs, paraphernalia, stolen motorcycles, and a stolen van fitted with false plates were discovered at the Appellant's residence. The Appellant denied knowledge of the stolen goods and claimed the drugs were for personal use, a position contradicted by his later guilty pleas.

The Appellant and Maddix were charged on separate indictments with possession of amphetamine with intent to supply, handling stolen goods, and offences related to participation in the activities of an organised crime group under the Serious Crime Act 2015.

Initially, the Appellant pleaded not guilty but later pleaded guilty to certain charges in advance of trial. The trial for the remaining charges began on 5 November 2018, with the Appellant entering guilty pleas to counts 3 and 4 related to participation in organised crime on 6 November 2018. Sentencing was delivered on 19 November 2018 by His Honour Judge Walsh.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total sentence of 6 years and 6 months' imprisonment imposed on the Appellant was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentences for counts 3 and 4 on indictment 7230 should have been ordered to run concurrently rather than consecutively.
3. The appropriate application of sentencing guidelines, including whether the theft guideline or guidelines relating to perverting the course of justice were applicable to the offences under the Serious Crime Act 2015.
4. Whether the Appellant was entitled to greater credit for his guilty pleas.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The comparison with the theft sentencing guideline for count 3 was of limited assistance, and even under that guideline, the starting point should not have exceeded 2 years' imprisonment before credit for plea; the 30 months implied by the sentence was too long.
• For count 4, by analogy with cases of attempting to pervert the course of justice, the judge's starting point of approximately 48 months was too high.
• The sentences for counts 3 and 4 should have been concurrent because they represented a course of conduct involving the same vehicle, rather than consecutive, which resulted in a total sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for a single offence.
• Insufficient credit was given for the guilty pleas, as the Appellant had indicated willingness to admit assisting conspirators in advance of trial.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on the overall sentence imposed for the Appellant's multiple offences rather than the precise structure of individual sentences. It acknowledged that consecutive sentences were permissible provided the total was not manifestly excessive. The Appellant committed distinct offences on five separate occasions involving different types of criminality.

There was no definitive sentencing guideline for offences under section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, so the court considered analogies with theft guidelines for count 3 and cases of perverting the course of justice for count 4, but found limited assistance in these comparisons.

The court emphasized the seriousness of participating in organised crime, noting the offence’s focus on punishment, public protection, and deterrence. The Appellant's role in the theft of two vehicles intended for use by an organised crime group was serious, even if the precise criminal purpose was unknown at the time.

Count 4 was deemed significantly more serious due to the deliberate attempt to impede a police investigation into a serious crime, carried out on behalf of an organised crime group. The court agreed with the trial judge’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for counts 3 and 4, as the offences were distinct in time, location, and nature.

While the sentence for count 4 was somewhat long, the court noted that the low sentences imposed for other offences balanced the overall sentence. Considering the totality principle, the court concluded that the overall sentence of 6 years and 6 months was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the Appellant's appeal against sentence, affirming the total sentence of 6 years and 6 months' imprisonment. The decision confirms that consecutive sentences for distinct offences related to organised crime participation are appropriate when not manifestly excessive. No new precedent was established, and the ruling primarily affects the parties by upholding the original sentencing decision.