Leacock & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a reference by the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) from a sentence imposed at the Crown Court. The panel comprised Judge Stuart-Smith, Judge Spencer and Judge Marks. The Attorney General (represented by Attorney Ratliff) sought leave to refer sentences passed by Ms Recorder Presland at the Crown Court on 5 November 2025. Two offenders are the subjects of the reference: the First Offender and the Second Offender.

The First Offender (aged 57) pleaded guilty at an early stage to conspiracy to commit fraud and indicated an intention to plead guilty to drug offences at first appearance. The First Offender received an immediate custodial sentence of 30 months for fraud with concurrent sentences of 30 months for possession with intent to supply heroin and possession with intent to supply cocaine. The Second Offender (aged 46) pleaded guilty shortly before trial and was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment suspended for 2 years with a 25-day rehabilitation requirement.

The factual background in the sentencing material described an organised operation in which victims (largely elderly and vulnerable persons in the County) were cold-called, persuaded to hand over bank cards to couriers and in some cases PINs were obtained; identified loss from six victims totalled £7,525.29. The First Offender was linked to all six identified victims and to payments made on stolen cards; the Second Offender was directly involved in three of the six and acted as a courier on at least one occasion. A search of premises associated with the First Offender produced a large quantity of Class A drugs with an estimated street value of c. £35,000–£37,000. Both offenders answered "no comment" in interview. Victim personal statements detailing distress and loss were before the sentencing court. Both offenders had extensive antecedent records including prior convictions for strikingly similar frauds, and two prior convictions (7 September 2012) for conspiracy to defraud involved both offenders as co-conspirators.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were unduly lenient and should be increased on reference under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
2. Whether the sentencing judge correctly applied the sentencing guideline categorisation for fraud (culpability and harm), including the proper treatment of victim vulnerability and intended loss.
3. Whether the sentencing judge properly treated previous convictions as aggravating features (and avoided impermissible "double counting").
4. Whether the sentencing judge properly applied totality and concurrency principles in relation to the fraud and drug offences.
5. Whether the Goodyear indication and the sentencing process justified the suspended sentence imposed on the Second Offender.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor-General's Arguments

• Multiple factors demonstrated high culpability (sophistication, sustained activity, many potential victims, deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims); both offenders were within culpability category A.
• Actual loss fell in category 4 but intended loss justified moving to category 3; vulnerability justified uplift for high impact.
• The presence of multiple high-culpability factors and the offenders' prior convictions for strikingly similar frauds required an upward adjustment from the category 3A starting point (36 months).
• The sentencing judge was wrong to treat vulnerability as "double counting" and wrong to limit application of the category 3A starting point to situations where every listed factor was present.
• For the First Offender, drug quantities justified consideration of an upward adjustment within category 3; previous convictions were aggravating for drugs; the drug sentences should have been consecutive to fraud (or, if concurrent, the fraud sentence should have been uplifted for totality).
• Primary submission: immediate custodial sentences were required that precluded suspended sentences for both offenders; alternatively, the suspended sentence for the Second Offender was inappropriate.

First Offender's Arguments (Attorney Carter)

• Accepted that vulnerability is relevant to both culpability and harm but argued vulnerability did not evidence targeted selection of vulnerable victims.
• Actual and intended losses were far below indicative amounts for category 3 starting points, which should inform severity.
• Mitigation: caregiving responsibilities, health issues, supportive charitable character evidence and probation material; asserted sentencing judge did account for drug matters.
• Noted the First Offender had been released on licence and was complying.

Second Offender's Arguments (Attorney Nelson)

• Role was less serious because direct involvement was with three of six identified victims; disputed description as part of an organised crime group.
• Relied on the Goodyear indication given at the Warned List and contended it created an expectation that a suspended sentence would follow upon plea.
• Submitted that the sentence imposed was correct and not unduly lenient.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Wharf [2015] EWCA Crim 2320	Authority that vulnerability can be considered under both culpability and harm (rejection of double counting argument).	Relied upon to reject the Recorder's view that treating vulnerability under both headings was double counting; vulnerability could increase both culpability and harm.
R v BAB [2024] EWCA Crim 712	Support for treating vulnerability in both culpability and harm assessments.	Used to reinforce that the guideline permits considering victim vulnerability for both culpability and harm.
R v Samurio [2016] EWCA Crim 1948	Principle that intended loss (as well as actual loss) must be considered in conspiracy cases.	Applied to justify considering intended loss and to support moving the fraud offence from harm category 4 to 3 on account of intended loss and high impact.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found four principal errors in the Recorder's application of the guidelines:

1. The Recorder was wrong to treat the category 3A starting point as applicable only if every factor listed under "High Culpability" was present; multiple factors properly exert upward pressure on the starting point.
2. The Recorder was wrong to treat consideration of victim vulnerability under both culpability and harm as impermissible double counting; the guideline requires consideration of vulnerability under both headings.
3. The Recorder was wrong to treat previous convictions as already subsumed within the culpability categorisation so that treating them as aggravating would be double counting; the Court held previous convictions were distinct aggravating features warranting further upward adjustment.
4. The Recorder was incorrect to view the high number of phone calls as lessening culpability; the "scatter gun" approach did not reduce culpability given the operation's sophistication and intent to identify vulnerable victims.

The Court applied the guideline principles and the cited authorities, including that intended loss must be considered (R v Samurio and s.63 Sentencing Act 2020). It concluded both fraud offences were correctly placed in category 3A but required upward adjustments to reflect multiple high-culpability factors and the offenders' prior convictions for strikingly similar frauds.

Application to the Second Offender: the Court found the appropriate notional starting point was 3 years, with upward adjustment to 3 years 9 months given multiple high culpability factors and prior convictions; after a 15% plea reduction the lowest reasonable sentence was 3 years' immediate custody.

Application to the First Offender: the Court found a notional sentence for fraud of 3 years 9 months, reduced by 25% for plea and shaded to reach a least appropriate fraud sentence of 2 years 8 months. The drug offences were category 3 lesser role with a notional sentence of 3 years reduced by one-third to c.2 years; for totality the Court reduced the drug sentence to 16 months and ordered the 16 months to run consecutively to the 2 years 8 months fraud sentence to produce an aggregate four-year custodial sentence for the First Offender.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING:

(i) For the First Offender the Court quashed the Recorder's sentences and substituted a sentence of 2 years 8 months for the fraud and 16 months for each of the drug offences; the drug offences' sentences are concurrent with each other but to be served consecutively to the fraud sentence (aggregate 4 years' custody).

(ii) For the Second Offender the Court quashed the Recorder's sentence and substituted a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment (immediate custody).

Implications: The direct consequence is that both previously imposed sentences were increased and immediate custodial sentences imposed. The opinion corrects the sentencing judge's application of the guidelines on culpability, harm, victim vulnerability and treatment of previous convictions; it did not purport to create a new legal precedent beyond the application of existing authorities cited. No wider change to sentencing law was declared; the decision alters only the sentences of the two offenders in this reference.