Havell, R. v

In sentencing for blackmail, the court must place the offending at the appropriate point on the sentencing scale. The gravity of deliberately coercive and intimidating conduct may justify immediate custody, but sentences remain excessive if they overstate the seriousness of the offending when compared with other cases.

Individual sentences must reflect each offender’s role, antecedents and mitigation. Where the leading offender’s sentence is reduced, a corresponding adjustment may be required to preserve proper relative culpability.

The applicants were convicted at Bristol Crown Court on 21 June 2005 of seven counts of blackmail arising from their wheel-clamping business. Motorists were clamped or prevented from leaving, subjected to demands for payment, and in several incidents filmed in an intrusive and intimidating manner.

On 28 July 2005, Judge Roach sentenced Miller, whom he regarded as the principal architect of the enterprise, to four years’ imprisonment. Havell, who had a lesser role and mitigating personal features, received three years. After the single judge refused leave, both applicants renewed their sentence appeals. Havell abandoned his separate conviction appeal.

The central issue was whether the custodial terms properly reflected the seriousness of this sustained blackmail offending and the appellants’ respective culpability.

1. The sentence appeals were allowed. The court accepted that blackmail was an ugly and serious offence and that the conduct towards motorists had been arrogant, bullying and abhorrent. Custody was plainly justified.

2. The sentencing judge nevertheless placed the offences too high on the sentencing scale. There was no directly comparable authority giving guidance. The court agreed that R v Cutbill was substantially less serious, but concluded independently that four years for Miller was excessive.

3. Miller was the directing mind of the wheel-clamping operation. He supplied its equipment and vehicles and was properly treated as the leading offender. His antecedent assault on a motorist in the course of the business was also relevant. The appropriate sentence was three years’ imprisonment, substituted for four years.

4. The judge had correctly recognised Havell’s lesser role, his personal mitigation and the absence of convictions since 1996. Once Miller’s sentence was reduced, proper relativity required Havell’s three-year term to be reduced to two years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): by [2006] EWCA Crim 735, the sentence appeals were allowed; Miller’s sentence was reduced from four to three years’ imprisonment and Havell’s from three to two years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Bristol: on 21 June 2005 the applicants were convicted of seven counts of blackmail. On 28 July 2005 they were sentenced to four years’ imprisonment (Miller) and three years’ imprisonment (Havell).