Mhasvi & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2023, three defendants—referred to here as Appellant 1, Appellant 2, and Appellant 3—stood trial before Judge Preston and a jury in the Crown Court at The City on a single indictment. They were charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, along with various additional offences including unauthorised possession and transmission of electronic communication devices and possession with intent to supply a psychoactive substance. One defendant changed their plea to guilty before trial, while the others were convicted following the trial.

The underlying facts relate to events in mid-2022 involving a conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with serious offences including conspiracy to rob and kidnap. The defendants and others allegedly arranged for key witnesses to leave the jurisdiction before trial, facilitated through illicit communications from prison and cryptocurrency payments. The witnesses did not attend court, leading to arrest warrants. The defendants were sentenced in early 2024, with varying terms of imprisonment reflecting their roles and offences.

Subsequently, Appellant 1 renewed an application for leave to appeal sentence following refusal by a single judge, while Appellant 2 and Appellant 3 appealed against sentence with leave granted by the single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on each appellant for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and related offences were manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge correctly applied the sentencing guidelines and properly accounted for aggravating and mitigating factors, including the appellants' roles, personal mitigation, and guilty pleas.
3. Whether the consecutive sentences imposed on Appellant 3 for possession with intent to supply a psychoactive substance and failure to comply with a notice to disclose a phone PIN were appropriate.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant 1's Arguments

• The starting point for sentencing was too high, rendering the overall sentence manifestly excessive.
• The sentencing judge failed to adequately consider Appellant 1's personal mitigation, including lack of relevant previous convictions, time already spent in custody, youth, remorse, and health issues.
• The judge improperly increased the starting point based on the notional sentence for the original offences, effectively "double counting" the seriousness of the underlying offences.

Appellant 2's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive for multiple reasons: the starting point was too high; the judge equated Appellant 2's culpability with that of Appellant 1 despite a lesser role; insufficient credit was given for the guilty plea; personal mitigation was inadequately considered; and the judge failed to account for time spent in custody on original charges.
• The credit for the guilty plea should have been greater than the 15% allowed, given the pressures Appellant 2 faced in prison among co-defendants.

Appellant 3's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was right to adjust the sentence to reflect Appellant 3's lesser role and mitigation but took too high a starting point overall.
• The consecutive sentences for possession with intent to supply a psychoactive substance and failure to comply with a notice to disclose phone PIN were excessive, as the supply was social rather than commercial and the quantities modest.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the sentencing decisions in light of the appellants' roles, the nature of the conspiracy, and applicable sentencing guidelines. For Appellant 1, the court found no merit in the arguments that the starting point was excessive or that personal mitigation was insufficiently considered. The court noted that the judge avoided double counting the original offences and properly identified serious aggravating factors, including Appellant 1's central role, use of illicit phones, involvement of others, and additional convictions.

Regarding Appellant 2, the court accepted that the sentencing judge erred in equating Appellant 2's culpability with Appellant 1's and in failing to fully account for personal mitigation and time spent in custody. The court found that a greater credit for the guilty plea was appropriate, considering the pressures Appellant 2 faced. Consequently, the court reduced Appellant 2's sentence.

For Appellant 3, the court acknowledged the judge's recognition of the lesser role and mitigation but concluded that the net effect of adjustments was too modest. The court reduced the sentence for the conspiracy count and quashed the consecutive sentences for possession with intent to supply and failure to disclose the phone PIN, substituting lesser terms more proportionate to the circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The court refused leave to appeal against sentence for Appellant 1, affirming the original custodial terms as appropriate and justified by the facts and legal principles.

The court allowed the appeal of Appellant 2, reducing the sentence from five years and six months to four years' imprisonment, reflecting a more accurate assessment of culpability, mitigation, and credit for the guilty plea.

The court allowed the appeal of Appellant 3, reducing the total sentence from 54 months to 42 months by adjusting the conspiracy sentence and substituting less severe consecutive terms for related offences.

The decision directly affects the appellants' sentences but does not establish new precedent beyond the application of established sentencing principles to the facts of this case.