W, R v

In sentencing serious criminal-property offending which facilitates identity and banking fraud, the court may properly treat deterrence and the prevalence of such offending as relevant. The custody threshold may be crossed even where the offender is young, of previous good character and acts in a subordinate role.

Those mitigating features, together with a guilty plea, absence of gain and a favourable pre-sentence assessment, may nevertheless make immediate custody disproportionate. A suspended sentence with supervision may be appropriate where it adequately reflects both the seriousness of the offending and the offender’s personal mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Northampton Magistrates’ Court to four offences contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He had assisted in opening a fraudulent bank account, received transfers from the account of an innocent customer, withdrew £10,000 and attempted to withdraw a further £5,000.

He was 18, of previous good character and a student. He played a significant but subordinate role, did not organise the fraud and received no payment. A pre-sentence report assessed him as presenting a low risk of reoffending and recommended a suspended sentence with supervision.

The Crown Court imposed concurrent terms of 14 months’ detention in a young offender institution. The appeal challenged the sentence as manifestly excessive and contended that it should have been suspended.

1. Appeal allowed. The concurrent sentences of 14 months’ detention in a young offender institution were manifestly excessive. They were replaced with nine months’ detention, suspended for one year, with a requirement of 12 months’ supervision.

2. The offending was serious. The appellant had played a significant role in facilitating a fraud exceeding £20,000 against an innocent bank customer. He had assisted in opening the fraudulent account, withdrawn £10,000 and attempted to withdraw a further £5,000. The use of stolen identity details and bank-security information to facilitate fraud was increasingly prevalent, and the sentencing judge was entitled to take that feature into account. The custody threshold was plainly passed.

3. However, the sentence did not sufficiently reflect the appellant’s mitigation. He was an impecunious 18-year-old student of previous good character. Although he had played a vital part, he had not orchestrated the fraud and had made no gain. He had pleaded guilty. A starting point in the region of 12 months’ detention, followed by appropriate credit for the plea, was appropriate.

4. Immediate custody was not required. The appellant’s youth, previous good character and subordinate role, considered with the favourable pre-sentence report, justified following the recommendation of a suspended sentence with supervision.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2009] EWCA Crim 2194, allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a suspended sentence.
• Northampton Crown Court — on 7 August 2009, imposed concurrent sentences of 14 months’ detention in a young offender institution.
• Northampton Magistrates’ Court — on 13 July 2009, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.