R v Thomas Alan Speed & Ors

When consecutive sentences reflect distinct criminality, the sentencing court must assess whether the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate and reflects the overall offending. That assessment requires consideration of a downward adjustment under the totality principle. The adjustment may be modest where the offences have little overlap, but the sentencing reasons should make its basis and extent sufficiently clear. An agreed fact containing a possible minor error will not render a conviction unsafe where the corrected fact would not alter the substance of the direction, the issue is peripheral, and it could not materially assist the jury on the critical issue.

Thomas Speed and Scott Roseau were convicted at the Crown Court at Liverpool of conspiracies involving firearms, ammunition and Class A drugs. James Salkeld pleaded guilty to related conspiracies involving firearms, ammunition and Class A and Class B drugs. They received sentences ranging from 15 years and 4 months to 28 years.

Roseau renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction, arguing that a jury direction concerning the electricity supply at a property containing drugs, cash and firearms was factually misleading. Speed, Roseau and Salkeld appealed against sentence on totality grounds. The central issues were whether Roseau’s conviction was unsafe and whether the aggregate sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. Roseau’s conviction appeal. The alleged error concerned an agreed fact that the power at the property had been switched off at the mains. It did not say that the property had been disconnected from the electricity supply. The jury direction therefore did not undermine Roseau’s account that the property could have been rented. Even if the agreed fact had been expressed inaccurately, the corrected version would have made no material difference to the substance of the evidence: the household appliances were not in normal use during the search.
2. The electricity issue was peripheral in the context of the case. It could not assist the jury in deciding whether the flat had been used by another person during the critical period of the EncroChat messages. The prosecution evidence connecting Roseau to the relevant device, vehicle and locations was compelling. The conviction was not unsafe. The application for an extension of time was futile and was refused.
3. Totality. Firearms offending was distinct from drug offending, so consecutive sentences were appropriate. Nevertheless, totality required the sentencing judge to consider carefully whether the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate and reflected the overall criminality, including whether a downward adjustment was warranted.
4. The sentencing judge had referred to totality but had not identified the sentences before adjustment or the extent of any reduction. In each case, the Court concluded that no significant adjustment had been made and that the aggregate sentence required a modest reduction. Speed’s sentences were reduced by one year on each relevant count, producing a total of 26 years. Roseau’s sentences were reduced by one year on each relevant count, producing a total of 20 years. For Salkeld, the totality adjustment was made to the notional sentences before the guilty-plea reduction, producing a total of 14 years.

All three sentence appeals were allowed to that extent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Roseau’s application for an extension of time in relation to his conviction appeal was refused. The sentence appeals of Speed, Roseau and Salkeld were allowed, with substituted sentences of 26 years, 20 years and 14 years respectively.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: Speed and Roseau were convicted after trial, while Salkeld pleaded guilty to related conspiracy offences. On 17 June 2024, the court imposed sentences of 28 years, 22 years and 15 years and 4 months respectively.