Rudd, R v

A sentencing court must follow an applicable sentencing guideline under section 125 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2008 unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. A difference between sentences imposed on co-offenders does not itself establish injustice. The comparison must be made with full knowledge of the relevant facts, including each offender’s role, antecedents, mitigation, other offending and the basis of earlier sentences. The disparity is objectionable only if properly informed, right-thinking members of the public would consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice. Totality may be reflected by reducing a sentence for one offence where consecutive terms are imposed for distinct offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Leeds to a conspiracy to defraud involving hand car wash businesses and to three offences of perverting the course of justice. He was sentenced to a total of 63 months’ imprisonment. The 45-month sentence for the conspiracy was consecutive to concurrent terms totalling 18 months for the perverting offences.

He appealed against sentence. He contended that the judge should not have applied the fraud sentencing guideline, that his sentence created an objectionable disparity when compared with sentences imposed on co-defendants, and that the starting point for the conspiracy was excessive. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive when the guideline, totality and the co-defendants’ sentences were properly considered.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was required to have regard to the applicable fraud sentencing guideline. Section 125 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2008 required its adoption unless that would be contrary to the interests of justice. The guideline applied to offenders sentenced after 14 October 2014 regardless of when the offence was committed.

2. The assessment of high culpability was justified. The appellant had played a leading and trusted role in a prolonged, sophisticated fraud, had benefited substantially, and had previous convictions for dishonesty. The judge was entitled to place the offence at the top of the applicable sentencing range.

3. The judge had also properly applied totality. He imposed 45 months for the conspiracy, rather than the 54 months which would have resulted from applying the six-year upper-range sentence and 25 per cent credit for guilty pleas, to accommodate the consecutive 18-month term for the distinct perverting offences.

4. The asserted disparity with co-defendants did not satisfy the test in R v Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 158. The court must ask whether properly informed, right-thinking members of the public, with full knowledge of the relevant facts, would consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice. The earlier sentences could not be meaningfully compared without knowing the relevant mitigation and sentencing circumstances. One co-defendant’s participation was materially different and limited; the other had received an overall sentence of 90 months for related offending. No objectionable disparity arose.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2017] EWCA Crim 2446, dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Leeds: On 9 June 2017, imposed a total sentence of 63 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to conspiracy to defraud and three offences of perverting the course of justice.