R v Mark Adrian Leacock & Anor

In sentencing a conspiracy to defraud, the guideline starting point is not reserved for cases in which every high-culpability factor is present. Multiple factors may require a significant upward adjustment. Victim vulnerability may be relevant to both culpability and harm; using it under both headings is not double counting. Previous convictions, particularly for strikingly similar offending, remain separate aggravating features. In a conspiracy, intended loss must be considered as well as actual loss. A high volume of calls made through a sophisticated scheme does not reduce culpability. Totality may require concurrent sentences for related offences but consecutive sentences for unrelated offending.

The Attorney General referred, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the sentences imposed by Ms Recorder Presland at the Inner London Crown Court on two co-offenders in an organised conspiracy to defraud elderly victims. The first offender was also convicted of Class A drug offences.

The first offender received 30 months’ imprisonment for fraud, with concurrent terms for the drug offences. The second offender received two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years, with a 25-day rehabilitation requirement.

The reference concerned whether the Recorder had misapplied the sentencing guidelines, improperly treated relevant features as double counting, and imposed sentences that were unduly lenient. The Court also considered plea credit, personal mitigation, totality and the effect of an earlier Goodyear indication.

The court granted leave to refer the sentences. It held that it was not bound by the Goodyear indication and had to determine independently whether the sentences were unduly lenient.

1. Sentencing errors. The Recorder was wrong to treat the guideline starting point as applicable only where every listed high-culpability factor was present. Multiple factors could exert significant upward pressure and required an upward adjustment. Victim vulnerability was relevant to both culpability and harm, and appropriately justified moving the fraud from category 4 to category 3. Treating vulnerability under both headings was not double counting.
2. The offenders’ previous convictions, especially their strikingly similar fraud convictions, were separate and serious aggravating features. They had not determined the categorisation or starting point and therefore had to produce a further upward adjustment. The large number of calls did not lessen culpability: the sophisticated scheme sought to identify victims sufficiently vulnerable to be deceived.
3. The court also noted that, under section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020, a court must consider harm caused, intended or foreseeably caused. In a conspiracy, this required regard to intended as well as actual loss, as recognised in R v Samurio [2016] EWCA Crim 1948.
4. Second offender. The offence was category 3A, with a three-year starting point. The combination of multiple high-culpability features and the previous record required an uplift to three years and nine months. After 15 per cent credit for the guilty plea, the sentence would exceed three years and two months and could not be suspended. A suspendible sentence was therefore unduly lenient. The lowest reasonable sentence was three years’ imprisonment.
5. First offender. The appropriate notional sentence for fraud was three years and nine months. After 25 per cent credit and appropriate allowance for mitigation, the lowest proper sentence was two years and eight months. The drug offences were category 3 offences involving a lesser role. After mitigation, previous convictions and one-third credit for the plea, the appropriate standalone sentence was two years. Applying totality, the drug sentence was reduced to 16 months, concurrent with the other drug sentences but consecutive to the fraud sentence.
6. The Recorder’s sentences were quashed. The first offender received two years and eight months for fraud and 16 months for each drug offence, concurrent with each other and consecutive to the fraud sentence. The second offender received three years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 1 April 2026, in [2026] EWCA Crim 490, leave was granted and the sentences were quashed and substituted following references under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
• Inner London Crown Court: On 5 November 2025, Ms Recorder Presland sentenced the first offender to 30 months’ imprisonment for fraud, with concurrent sentences for drug offences, and the second offender to two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years with a rehabilitation requirement.