Beddoes & Ors, R v

For organised conspiracies to burgle automatic teller machines by detonating gas explosions, sentencing must reflect the inherently dangerous use of explosives, sustained and professional planning, geographical reach, repeated offending, substantial loss and the need for deterrence. The absence of an intention to injure, actual injury, or evidence that many people were exposed to immediate danger remains material mitigation.

Sentencing comparisons assist but do not determine the result. The fact-specific criminality remains paramount. On the exceptional facts of this large-scale conspiracy, the appropriate post-trial starting point for those most heavily involved was 20 years’ imprisonment, rather than 23 years.

Five appellants appealed, with leave, against sentences imposed at Liverpool Crown Court on 5 September 2014. They had pleaded guilty to, or been convicted of, conspiracy to cause an explosion and conspiracy to burgle commercial premises. A separate judgment concerned two further appellants.

From January to December 2013, an organised group carried out 31 attacks on automatic teller machines. In at least 24 attacks it detonated, or attempted to detonate, oxygen and acetylene gas explosions. About £800,000 was stolen and damage cost about £500,000 to repair. The sentencing judge adopted a 23-year post-trial starting point for the leading participants.

The central question was whether that starting point, and consequently the individual sentences, were manifestly excessive.

1. Appeals allowed to a limited extent. The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose substantial deterrent sentences. The conspiracies involved a highly organised, professional and sustained campaign, repeated use of uncontrolled explosions, wide geographical reach, substantial theft and damage, and serious potential danger to the public.

2. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 142(1)(c), deterrence of other offenders was a proper sentencing purpose. Section 143(1) required the court to take account of harm that might foreseeably have been caused, as well as harm actually caused. Although no person was injured and injury was not intended, the evidence established a real risk from explosions, debris and persons unexpectedly approaching the scene.

3. Sentences for ram-raids, armed robberies and other explosive offences were informative comparisons only. They did not control the assessment. The gravity of this conspiracy lay in the criminal detonation of explosions, coupled with its exceptional scale and duration. The court distinguished R v Cassidy & Ors [2015] 1 Cr App R(S) 30, where the offending was far less extensive.

4. The absence of actual injury, intended injury, and evidence that substantial numbers of people were put at risk had to be weighed against the aggravating features. The 23-year post-trial starting point was therefore somewhat too high. The appropriate starting point for those most heavily involved was 20 years.

5. No separate ground justified a further reduction for any individual appellant. The court quashed the original sentences and imposed concurrent sentences: Beddoes and Cartwright, 15 and seven years; Ellis, 11 and six years; Bushell, 15 and seven years; and Whittingham, 16 and seven years, on counts 1 and 2 respectively.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeals against sentence allowed to the limited extent of reducing the sentences: [2015] EWCA Crim 2525.

• Liverpool Crown Court: On 5 September 2014, the five appellants were sentenced for conspiracy to cause an explosion and conspiracy to burgle commercial premises. The Court of Appeal quashed and substituted the sentences.