Beckford, R v

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, an alleged sentencing error does not justify intervention where it could not reasonably have affected the sentence. Sentence disparity with a co-offender does not establish that a sentence is manifestly excessive where the sentencing judge assessed the offenders’ relative culpability after hearing the trial, and differences in criminal records and mitigation explain the disparity. The application was therefore refused.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Harrow of conspiracy to rob and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on 24 July 2019. A single judge granted a short extension of time but refused leave to appeal. The renewed application relied on an inaccurate statement that the applicant was on licence and on alleged disparity between his sentence and the eight-year sentence imposed on a fellow conspirator. The central questions were whether the error could have affected sentence and whether the disparity made the sentence manifestly excessive.

1. Application refused. The proposed grounds of appeal had no realistic prospect of success.
2. The sentencing judge had stated that the applicant was on licence, although he had been on bail when arrested for an earlier drugs offence and was later sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for possession of heroin with intent to supply. The error was immaterial. The sentence for conspiracy to rob could have been ordered to commence after the earlier sentence, but instead commenced on the date of sentence. It was not reasonably arguable that the sentencing approach would or should have been different had the error not been made.
3. The alleged disparity with the co-conspirator did not provide an arguable basis for leave. The sentencing judge had presided over the trial and was well placed to assess the parties’ relative culpability. His assessment that both played leading roles and that there was little to choose between them could not be impugned in this case merely because it was alleged that the co-conspirator was more culpable.
4. The applicant’s record was significantly worse, while the co-conspirator had significantly stronger mitigation, including responsibility for a very young child. Those matters provided a proper basis for the difference between the nine-year and eight-year sentences. The applicant’s sentence was not manifestly excessive by comparison.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 16 February 2021, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2021] EWCA Crim 655.
2. Single judge — A short extension of time was granted, but leave to appeal was refused.
3. Crown Court at Harrow — The applicant was convicted on 24 June 2019 and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on 24 July 2019.