R v Jennifer Mbazira

In blackmail sentencing, the court should assess the unlawful demand, sums claimed, measures accompanying it, harm caused and the duration of the conduct. Without a sentencing guideline, a starting point in the region of four to five years' custody may be appropriate for sustained, planned offending causing significant harm, but sentencing remains fact-sensitive. Exceptional mitigation may justify a lower starting point. On appeal, the court should not interfere with evidential findings based on the evidence and consistent with it unless they are irrational. A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because another starting point might have been selected.

Following a retrial at the Crown Court at Portsmouth, the appellant was convicted of blackmail on 16 March 2022 and sentenced on 6 May 2022 to three years and six months' imprisonment. She renewed an application for a 43-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction, relying on complaints about representation, the indictment, trial rulings, prosecution evidence, cross-examination and the summing-up. Alternatively, with permission, she appealed against sentence, arguing that the four-year starting point was excessive and that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation. The central issues were whether any conviction ground was arguable and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The renewed application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal against conviction were refused. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. Conviction. The court indicated that an extension would be granted if the proposed grounds were arguable, but identified no arguable ground. The appellant had chosen to represent herself, and the trial record showed that the judge and prosecution had provided proper assistance. There was no indictment error rendering the trial void or voidable; after conviction on count 1, count 2 was properly ordered to lie on the file. There was evidence on which the jury could convict, so the refusal of a submission of no case to answer was proper. Complaints about perjury concerned the credibility and truth of prosecution evidence, matters for the jury, and there was no indication of false evidence or an intention to mislead. The cross-examination and summing-up were fair.
2. Sentence. In the absence of a guideline, the court considered Attorney General's Reference No 84 of 2015 [2015] EWCA Crim 2314. Sentencing should address the unlawful demand, sums claimed, accompanying measures, harm and duration, thereby assessing culpability and harm. A starting point in the region of four to five years' custody could be appropriate. R v O'Sullivan [2021] EWCA Crim 248, [2021] 2 Cr App R(S) 28, was materially different because of its extraordinary mitigating features.
3. The judge was entitled to take a four-year starting point in light of the persistence, planning, threats, sums involved and harm caused. His findings were based on the evidence, consistent with it and not irrational. The six-month reduction for mitigation was sufficient, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 26 May 2023, refused the renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, and dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2023] EWCA Crim 658.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: Following retrial, convicted the appellant of blackmail on 16 March 2022 and sentenced her on 6 May 2022 to three years and six months' imprisonment. No citation was stated in the judgment.