R v Mandeep Singh Rajwansee

An offender must be sentenced only for offending proved or admitted. That does not prevent a sentencing court from using prosecution evidence about uncharged material to assess culpability, provided it does not sentence the offender for additional offences. Guilty plea credit depends on the procedural chronology. A plea to counts added shortly before the plea may attract full credit. An appellate court should be slow to interfere with refusal to suspend custody where the decision falls within reasonable discretion. Immediate custody may remain necessary for punishment despite strong mitigation and the possibility of suspension. The appeal was allowed in part because insufficient plea credit had been given.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Isleworth to two offences of transferring criminal property and two offences of possessing criminal property, contrary to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

He appealed on three grounds: that ledgers and notes relating to uncharged conduct had improperly been used to assess culpability; that the guilty plea discount on three counts was insufficient; and that the sentences should have been suspended. The appeal concerned the proper assessment of culpability, the timing of guilty pleas to counts added by amendment, and the proper approach to immediate custody.

The appeal was allowed in part. Grounds 1 and 3 were rejected, while ground 2 succeeded.

1. Assessment of culpability. Fairness requires an offender to be sentenced only for offending proved or accepted. That principle did not prevent the Recorder from considering prosecution evidence contained in ledgers and notes when assessing the appellant’s role. The Recorder was not sentencing the appellant for further offences. The substantial cash and gold bars found at his home, together with the records, supported an inference of an ongoing readiness to transfer criminal property and justified placing him in medium rather than lesser culpability. Ignoring that evidence would have been unreasonable.
2. Guilty plea credit. The plea to count 1 was entered late and the 10 per cent discount on that count was correct. Counts 3, 4 and 5 were added to the indictment on 10 February 2023, and the appellant indicated his intention to plead guilty on 16 February before formally pleading guilty on 20 February. He was therefore entitled to full credit on those counts. Restricting the discount to 10 per cent made the resulting sentences wrong in principle.
3. Suspension of sentence. The court should be slow to interfere with a decision whether to suspend imprisonment where that decision falls within the sentencing judge’s reasonable discretion. The court had in mind the guidance in R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 concerning the greater hardship currently experienced by those in custody. Suspension was possible, but the Recorder was entitled to conclude that appropriate punishment for these serious money laundering offences required immediate custody. The refusal to suspend was neither wrong in principle nor excessive.
4. The sentences on counts 3 and 5 were reduced to 13 months each, and the sentence on count 4 was reduced to 18 months. All sentences were concurrent with the 18-month sentence on count 1. The total sentence was therefore 18 months, less 190 days served on qualifying curfew.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 13 December 2023, the appeal was allowed in part, with the sentences reduced to reflect full guilty plea credit on three counts: [2023] EWCA Crim 1662.
2. Crown Court at Isleworth: On 5 October 2023, the appellant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for four money laundering offences.