Pease & Ors, R. v

For a deliberate, organised and persistent conspiracy causing criminal damage on a massive scale, immediate custody may be fully justified despite previous good character, a low assessed risk of reoffending and subsequent positive conduct. Sentences must reflect each offender’s role, the scale and cost of the damage, and the disruption caused to the public.

Sentencing in such cases properly includes a substantial deterrent element. A previous sentencing decision reached on particular facts, and not intended as a guideline, does not establish a comparable sentencing level where materially different mitigation was present.

The four appellants pleaded guilty, after the trial had begun, to conspiracy to commit criminal damage. They were members of the DPM Crew, a group responsible for planned graffiti attacks on trains, rolling stock, railway infrastructure and stations.

At Southwark Crown Court, Judge Hardy sentenced Gillman to 24 months’ imprisonment, Zinoviev and Grudzinskas to 18 months’ imprisonment, and Pease to 15 months’ imprisonment. The appellants challenged the lengths of those sentences, relying on their good character, guilty pleas, personal mitigation and low assessed risk of reoffending.

The central issue was whether the individual custodial sentences were excessive for the appellants’ respective roles in a widespread and costly conspiracy.

1. All four sentence appeals were dismissed. Gillman was granted leave to appeal so that his position was the same as that of the other appellants.
2. The conspiracy involved carefully planned and persistent attacks on railway property. It caused very substantial, though unquantifiable, loss, including the withdrawal of trains from service and the costs of repair. The court upheld the sentencing judge’s assessment that this was serious criminal damage on an almost industrial scale.
3. The judge was entitled to differentiate between the appellants by reference to their roles. Gillman’s role as a prime mover was distinctly established. Zinoviev and Grudzinskas had extensive involvement, while Pease’s role was lower but still significant. The asserted disparity between Pease and two non-appellant conspirators was not unjustified because evidence inculpating Pease was not available against them.
4. The appellants’ previous good character, subsequent insight, positive conduct and low risk of reoffending were relevant, but did not make the sentences excessive. Their guilty pleas were delayed until after trial proceedings and evidential rulings had begun.
5. R v Dolan and Whittaker [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 67 was not a guideline decision. Its merciful outcome depended on its own facts, including immediate admissions, and did not require a reduction here.
6. Where vandalism is on this scale, custodial sentences within the range imposed were appropriate. Deterrence was a necessary sentencing purpose.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeals against sentence and granted Gillman leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Southwark: on 11 July 2008, sentenced the appellants following guilty pleas to conspiracy to commit criminal damage.