Shergill, R v

A planned attempted kidnapping undertaken to enforce a claimed debt is grave self-help offending and calls for a substantial custodial sentence. Deliberate organisation, recruitment of others and preparation of equipment are aggravating features.

In fixing sentence, the court must nevertheless assess the offence against the appropriate sentencing range and give proper weight to personal mitigation. Where a sentence is at the upper end of the proper range but insufficiently reflects mitigation, including remorse, constructive conduct in custody and compelling evidence of rehabilitation, it may be reduced on appeal.

The appellant was convicted at Coventry Crown Court of attempted kidnap and acquitted of conspiracy to kidnap. He had recruited three men to seize the victim, arranged a van with false registration plates and supplied materials including masking tape and plastic ties. The attempt failed when the victim resisted and the men left.

He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge had refused it. The issue was whether that sentence properly reflected the seriousness of the planned offence and the available mitigation.

1. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed. The sentence of four years’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with one of three years’ imprisonment.

2. The offence was serious. It involved an organised attempt to take the victim by force in order to obtain an undertaking concerning a claimed business debt. The appellant was the ring leader: he recruited the other men, arranged the van’s false identity, provided equipment for the intended kidnapping and organised later transport. Resort to such self-help must be discouraged and ordinarily attracts a custodial sentence of considerable length.

3. The court treated Attorney General’s Reference No 15 of 1999 [2000] 1 Cr App R(S) 128 as indicating that four years was at the top of the appropriate sentencing range for this kind of offending. The earlier case involved a more serious abduction, including the discharge of a firearm, although the court observed that the use of the firearm might now be approached differently.

4. The sentencing judge had considered mitigation, but the Court of Appeal held that it justified a reduction. Relevant matters included the age of the more serious convictions, favourable references showing recent constructive community work, good progress and assistance to other prisoners, the effect on the appellant’s family, and his remorse. Those matters reduced the appropriate sentence to three years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The court quashed the four-year sentence and substituted three years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Coventry: On 26 October 2007 the appellant was convicted of attempted kidnap and acquitted of conspiracy to kidnap. On 23 November 2007 he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.