Joseph, R. v

Sentencing within a guideline category is not a mathematical exercise. The position of the proceeds figure within a category’s monetary band does not require a linear adjustment from the stated starting point. The court must assess the seriousness of the particular offending, including its sophistication, duration and the offender’s role.

A sentence imposed at the appropriate end of the applicable guideline range will not be manifestly excessive merely because the amount actually obtained was lower than the total sum involved in the offending.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to conspiracy to convert criminal property. He had joined a conspiracy to launder the proceeds of fraud and, after learning that the payments were fraudulent, opened and operated accounts to receive funds.

The transactions exceeded £150,000 in total, although one fraudulent payment of about £35,983 was successfully obtained. The sentencing judge placed the offence in category 4A of the money-laundering guideline and imposed three years and seven months’ imprisonment after credit for a late guilty plea.

Following a single judge’s refusal, the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that the starting point should have been closer to the bottom of the range because the total was below the figure on which the category starting point was based.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of three years and seven months’ imprisonment was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The judge had correctly placed the offence in category 4A of the money-laundering guideline. The conspiracy was sophisticated and sustained. The applicant played a central role, although he was not its leader. The total value of the transactions was about £150,000.

3. The applicant’s submission wrongly treated the guideline range and starting point as a linear calculation based on the proceeds figure. Sentencing requires an evaluative assessment, rather than a formulaic or mathematical exercise. The structure of the adjacent category demonstrated the flaw in that approach, since its upper limit was itself four years’ custody for an amount of £100,000.

4. The sentencing judge was entitled to select a four-year starting point within the applicable range, having allowed for the lower total relative to the guideline’s reference figure. The further reduction to three years and seven months properly reflected the late guilty plea. A lower sentence would have been unduly lenient.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge had refused it. The renewed application was refused.

2. Crown Court at Warwick: On 24 May 2017, the applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to convert criminal property. On 3 July 2017, he was sentenced to three years and seven months’ imprisonment.