Adair, R v

Drug dealing and the laundering of its proceeds may overlap factually, but they remain distinct forms of criminality that must be separately marked in sentence. Where serious money laundering has been subsumed within a sentence for drug offences, concurrent terms for the laundering counts may be appropriate between themselves, but a final laundering term may properly be consecutive to sentences for drug dealing and violence, subject to totality. A deliberate wounding with intent involving pursuit of an already injured victim and use of a vehicle as a weapon requires a starting point that reflects the exceptional gravity of the harm, culpability and continuing impact on the victim.

The Solicitor General referred the offender's sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient.

At the Crown Court at Leeds, the offender had received an overall sentence of 12 years' imprisonment for wounding with intent, drug-supply offences, possession of cocaine, and money-laundering offences. The Recorder imposed a three-year consecutive sentence for drug dealing and a nine-year consecutive sentence for the more serious wounding. The money-laundering terms, including an 18-month term for a laundering arrangement used to purchase a house, were concurrent.

The central issue was whether the overall sentence adequately reflected the separate criminality of money laundering and the gravity of the deliberate vehicle attack.

1. The court granted leave and held that the overall sentence of 12 years' imprisonment was unduly lenient.

2. There were three distinct categories of offending: violence, drug dealing and money laundering. Although the cash generated by drug dealing was relevant to categorising the drug offending, that overlap did not remove the need to mark money laundering as separate criminality. The sentencer should have dealt with the laundering offences in accordance with the applicable definitive guideline. For high culpability and laundering of about £50,000, it indicated a starting point of three years' imprisonment and a range of 18 months to four years.

3. The court accepted that concurrent terms could be imposed as between the laundering offences. However, the final laundering term should run consecutively to the sentences for the drug and section 18 offences. This gave proper effect to the distinct criminality while preserving the principle of totality.

4. The starting point of 12 years for the second wounding with intent was also too low. The victim had first been beaten, then pursued while vulnerable, and deliberately run over. The vehicle was used as a weapon; the injuries and their continuing consequences were grave; and the offender was on three sets of police bail. A starting point of about 16 years before guilty-plea credit was expected.

5. Giving credit for the guilty pleas and applying totality, the court quashed the concurrent 18-month sentence on count 1 of indictment 520 and substituted two years' imprisonment, to run consecutively. The resulting total sentence was 14 years' imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, held the 12-year sentence unduly lenient, and increased the overall term to 14 years' imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Leeds On 4 January 2018, the Recorder imposed an overall sentence of 12 years' imprisonment for violence, drug and money-laundering offences.