Crimes, R. v

In sentencing for participation in an organised crime group under section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, analogies with theft guidelines or fact-specific cases of perverting the course of justice may provide only limited assistance. The sentencing court should instead assess culpability and the harm caused, intended or likely, within the statutory maximum.

Participation is inherently serious. Sentencing will generally emphasise punishment, protection of the public and deterrence. On a sentence appeal, the court must assess the overall term and totality. Consecutive terms may be proper for distinct criminal acts on separate occasions, provided that the resulting sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to five offences on three indictments. They included possession of amphetamine with intent to supply, handling stolen goods, and two offences of participating in the activities of an organised crime group.

The latter offences concerned assisting the theft of vehicles for use by the group and later destroying one vehicle after it had been used in a planned shooting. On 19 November 2018, the Crown Court at Manchester (Crown Square) imposed a total sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment.

By leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. He challenged the length and consecutive structure of the sentences for the organised-crime offences and the credit allowed for his guilty pleas.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment, although stiff, was not manifestly excessive.

2. The correct focus was the overall sentence for all five offences, not the precise structure of the individual terms. Consecutive sentences were in principle available for each count because the offences were different and committed on separate occasions. The total nevertheless had to satisfy totality and avoid manifest excess.

3. There was no definitive guideline for the section 45 offences under the Serious Crime Act 2015. The theft guideline and the fact-specific cases of R v Dowd & Huskins [2001] Cr App R(S) 349 and R v Beaney [2005] EWCA Crim 1127 were of limited assistance. The appropriate assessment was of culpability and harm, within the statutory maximum of five years.

4. Participation in an organised crime group is inherently serious. Applying the purposes in section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, sentencing should generally focus on punishment, public protection and deterrence. The appellant’s role in stealing cars for professional criminals was serious, even though he may not have known their exact intended use.

5. Destroying the car after the shooting was more serious. It was a determined attempt to impede investigation of serious violence on behalf of an organised crime group. The two section 45 offences were separated by a month and were distinct aspects of criminality, so consecutive terms were justified. Although the four-year pre-plea equivalent for the destruction offence was somewhat too long, the low concurrent nine-month terms for the other three offences meant that the overall sentence remained proper.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2019] EWCA Crim 1108, dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the total term of six years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Manchester (Crown Square): On 19 November 2018, sentenced the appellant following guilty pleas to five offences on three indictments.