Dincer & Ors, R. v

In sentencing connected conspiracies and separate serious offences, the court must ensure that the overall term properly reflects totality and relative culpability. A sentencing court may assess each offender’s role from the evidence, but unexplained disparity and insufficient allowance for the relationship between connected offending can make consecutive sentences excessive.

Section 116(8) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, concerning an offence committed over two or more days, does not require a long-running conspiracy to be treated as committed only on the final date alleged in the indictment.

Eleven defendants were sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court for offences arising from the activities of the “Bombacilla” gang, including conspiracy to blackmail and conspiracy to commit arson reckless as to whether life was endangered. Some defendants also faced substantive violence and firearms offences.

Six defendants appealed their sentences. The principal issues were the appropriate relationship between sentences for the conspiracies and earlier sentences for connected gang violence, alleged disparity between offenders, guilty-plea credit, and the calculation of a return-to-custody period for Basbaydar under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

1. Appeals allowed in part. The court upheld the judge’s assessment that the offending was extremely serious and that substantial immediate custodial sentences were required. The judge was entitled, on the surveillance evidence, to assess the defendants’ differing roles within the gang.
2. The Court of Appeal nevertheless held that totality and the relationship between offenders had been insufficiently reflected in some sentences. In particular, greater weight should have been given to the context in which Comooglu and Gezen had committed the earlier Snaresbrook offences. The earlier violence had been treated separately and promptly for good reason, but it was connected to the gang activity relevant to the later sentencing exercise.
3. Ozmen had a legitimate complaint of disparity. His sentence for the 2 October 2003 offences had been made consecutive to the conspiracy sentences, whereas Aslan’s had been concurrent, without explanation. Taking account also of Ozmen’s participation in the arson conspiracy, the appropriate overall sentence was 11 years’ imprisonment.
4. The court rejected Basbaydar’s challenge under section 116(8) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. That provision was not intended to make a long-running conspiracy committed over the whole charged period into an offence committed only on the final alleged date. Evidence showed Basbaydar’s participation from October 2003, so the 480-day return-to-custody order was lawful.
5. The sentences were varied as follows: Dincer’s arson sentence was reduced to six years concurrent, leaving eight years overall; Comooglu received four years for the current offences, consecutive to the prior seven-year term, making 11 years overall; Gundiz’s total was reduced to six years; and Gezen received four years for the current offences, consecutive to the prior six-year term, making 10 years overall. Basbaydar’s appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sentences imposed at Woolwich Crown Court were varied for Dincer, Ozmen, Comooglu, Gundiz and Gezen; Basbaydar’s appeal was dismissed: [2006] EWCA Crim 3121.
• Woolwich Crown Court: His Honour Judge Stone QC sentenced the defendants in December 2005 and February 2006 following guilty pleas.