Mula & Ors, R v

Sentences for conspiracy to kidnap are highly fact-sensitive. In the absence of a sentencing guideline, decisions in other cases ordinarily provide only general assistance. A severe starting point may be justified by planned group offending, public abduction, violence with a weapon, detention, threats and an enforced confession.

A basis of plea concerning disputed sentencing facts should be clear, written and signed. A sentencing judge may refuse a Newton hearing where the defendant’s account is manifestly absurd or unreliable, provided reasons are given.

The three appellants challenged sentences imposed at Lewes Crown Court for conspiracy to kidnap. Mula pleaded guilty and received six and a half years for that offence. Hasa and Nejaz were convicted after trial and each received eight years for it; Nejaz also received consecutive sentences for witness intimidation and drug offending.

The victim was abducted, assaulted and threatened by the appellants after seeking to leave drug-related work. He was detained for two to three hours and compelled to make a recorded admission concerning drug dealing. The appeals challenged the eight-year starting point. Mula additionally contended that he had been sentenced on disputed facts concerning the enforced confession and the drug-related purpose of the kidnapping.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The judge’s eight-year starting point for conspiracy to kidnap was severe but not manifestly excessive. There was no applicable sentencing guideline and comparison with other kidnapping cases was of limited assistance. The offending was planned, committed by a group in public, involved violence with a metal object, detention, threats of further violence and an enforced confession.

2. Hasa and Nejaz were properly sentenced on the basis that they participated in the enforced confession. The jury’s verdicts necessarily accepted the victim’s evidence on that matter. Although drug dealing formed part of the context, the sentencing judge did not increase the starting point by sentencing the appellants for uncharged drug offences.

3. Mula’s complaint about the factual basis of sentence failed. His advocate had raised the denial of participation in the enforced confession, but neither the judge nor the Crown understood that to remain in issue. The lack of a clear, signed written basis of plea created that misunderstanding. Following R v Underwood [2005] 1 Cr App R 13, the court stressed that a basis of plea should be written and signed, so that the defendant’s case is unequivocal and known to all parties.

4. The absence of a written basis was not fatal, but materially weakened Mula’s appeal. Under the principles associated with R v Newton [1982] 77 Cr App R 13, a judge may decline to investigate a disputed account that is manifestly absurd or obviously unreliable. The court could itself assess the point. Mula’s proximity to the victim, his use of violence and the surrounding evidence made it implausible that he was unaware of, or uninvolved in, the purpose of obtaining the enforced confession.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appellants’ sentence appeals: [2017] EWCA Crim 32.
• Lewes Crown Court: HHJ Kemp imposed sentences on 28 January 2016 following Mula’s guilty plea and Hasa’s and Nejaz’s convictions after trial.