Jeffrey-Payne, R. v

The fact that offending is charged as a conspiracy does not of itself aggravate sentence. Its organised, wide-ranging character may properly increase seriousness where numerous participants perform differentiated roles within a sustained and sophisticated criminal enterprise.

When sentencing separate conspiracies concurrently, a court may give effect to totality without reducing the individual concurrent terms further, provided the overall sentence is not manifestly excessive. A sentencing judge may also select a higher guideline bracket where the scale, duration and aggravating features of the offending justify it.

The appellants participated in a sophisticated eight-month fraud on Transport for London using cloned older-generation Oyster cards. Thousands of cloned cards were produced and used to obtain cash refunds, causing a loss of £374,401.45.

At the Crown Court at Blackfriars, Jeffrey-Payne pleaded guilty at the start of trial and Rankin was convicted by the jury. Each was sentenced for conspiracy to supply articles for use in fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. They appealed against sentence, contending that the sentence for the fraud conspiracy was excessive, that the conspiracy had been wrongly treated as aggravating, and that insufficient weight had been given to totality.

1. The appeals against sentence were dismissed. The sentences were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. The judge correctly treated the conspiracy to supply articles for use in fraud as involving high culpability and greater harm. The roles of the appellants, the sophisticated planning, the sustained activity, the number of articles produced and the considerable gain justified that assessment.
3. For the conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation, the Court held that the judge was entitled to impose a sentence in the higher guideline category, with a starting point of seven years’ custody. The loss exceeded £375,000 and the offending was large-scale, prolonged and sophisticated. The judge was entitled to treat both appellants equally before allowing for Jeffrey-Payne’s guilty plea and Rankin’s good character.
4. The judge had expressly applied totality by ordering concurrent sentences for two distinct conspiracies: one to create and supply the articles and the other to use them to obtain money. No further reduction of the individual concurrent terms was required, and the resulting sentences were not manifestly excessive.
5. The Court rejected the contention that conspiracy had been treated as an aggravating feature merely because of the charge. In this case, the extensive and structured agreement, involving many participants with different roles, made the offending more serious and could properly aggravate sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed both appeals against sentence.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: on 20 October 2017, sentenced both appellants for conspiracy to supply articles for use in fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation.