R v Taofeeq Balogun & Anor

In sentencing for conspiracy to defraud, personal culpability must be assessed against the offender’s accepted basis of plea. That does not necessarily confine responsibility to losses caused by the offender’s own transactions. The court may reflect the wider conspiracy’s loss and non-financial harm where the evidence shows awareness of its scale and duration. Extensive victim impact may justify moving the offence into a higher harm category under the sentencing guideline. Family responsibilities and other mitigation may reduce sentence length, but do not automatically justify suspension. The court must apply the Imposition Guideline and its overall discretion. For sophisticated, sustained fraud involving substantial harm and continuing public risk, immediate custody may remain necessary.

Taofeeq Balogun and Oluwadamilola Bolaji pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to conspiracy to defraud after the jury had been put in charge. The conspiracy involved the fraudulent acquisition of mobile telephones and other electrical goods, causing substantial losses to providers and distress to numerous legitimate customers.

At the Crown Court at Portsmouth, Bolaji received 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment and Balogun received 3 years’ imprisonment. Balogun appealed against sentence. Bolaji renewed his applications for leave to appeal against sentence and for a representation order. The issues concerned culpability, the relevance of the wider conspiracy and victim impact, mitigation, and whether Balogun’s sentence could be suspended.

1. Bolaji. The court held that Bolaji was at least one of the leading participants and that his culpability was properly assessed as high. Although his basis of plea accepted direct responsibility for loss of £145,000, his involvement in the conspiracy meant that he could not avoid responsibility for the remainder of the loss. The overall financial loss, the additional harm to many victims and his previous convictions justified moving the offence to the higher guideline category. The resulting sentence of 6 years and 3 months was not open to legitimate criticism. His renewed applications were refused.
2. Balogun’s culpability and harm. Balogun’s personal culpability was properly assessed as medium, category B, in accordance with his accepted basis of plea. His direct contribution to harm fell within category 3, for which category 3B had a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. An overall increase was justified because he participated in a conspiracy causing loss beyond his individual actions and because the harm extended beyond financial loss. The incriminating material found at his address indicated that he was a trusted conspirator who understood the scale and continuing nature of the fraud.
3. Sentence and suspension. Before mitigation, a sentence of about 30 months after trial was appropriate. His family circumstances, employment and lack of relevant convictions reduced that figure to about 21 months, followed by credit for his guilty plea, producing 18 months. The court considered the Imposition Guideline and its overall discretion. Although there were rehabilitation prospects and significant family mitigation, the risk of further offending, the breach of a previous suspended sentence, the year-long involvement, the sophistication of the dishonesty and the substantial harm meant that only immediate custody was appropriate. The 3-year sentence was quashed and replaced by 18 months’ imprisonment. To that extent, Balogun’s appeal was allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 845, Balogun’s sentence was quashed and replaced with 18 months’ immediate custody. Bolaji’s renewed applications were refused.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: Balogun was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and Bolaji to 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment on 8 March 2024.