Evans, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 606
[2]a starting point with a range of a low level community order to one year.[3]A assessment up a category, so that if one is in 6C one moves up to 5C. The sentence The trial judge referred to the destruction caused by class A drugs; the ruination of people's lives’, the fact that class A drugs break up families, ruin health, corrode society, promote organised crime and enriche powerful criminals at the risk of the weak and vulnerable. He made clear that having been convicted by the jury of money laundering, the offending was an essential element in the way in which the underlying conspiracy had worked because it was necessary for the money to be hidden and passed on in order for it to succeed. The money would therefore be put into the care of people who were trusted, but who were below the radar and in that regard each of the applicants had played a direct role. The trial judge took the view, bearing in mind the sums of money involved in the supply of class A controlled drugs and in the absence of any plea of guilty, that there had to be a sentence of imprisonment in each applicant’s case. He bore in mind the Guideline, the mitigation advanced and the contents of the pre-sentence reports and reached the conclusion that the sentences to which we have already referred should be passed. The appeal On this appeal all three applicants contend that the sentence in their case is manifestly excessive. For Mr Evans, Miss Magill submits that the custody threshold was not even passed. She submits that Mr Evans had turned his life around, that he was performing a limited function with limited awareness on the instructions of or as a favour for his brother. Moreover he had dependants, in terms of a partner who was not in work, and all the conditions for a community order were in place. If that is not correct she submits that his sentence ought to have been suspended. In the case of both Mr Jackson and Mr Johnstone, the principal argument advanced is that the sentences in their cases ought to have been suspended. Looking at the Guideline, in relation to those applicants, both Mr Woodward and Mr Lord submit that they were at low risk of re-offending. There was no history of poor compliance with court orders and they did not know the scale of the operation or that it was concerned with class A drugs. In each of their cases they maintain there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and the court could be confident therefore that a suspended sentence was the appropriate sentence in their cases.The sentence
[4]National Lifeboat Institution, together with his father's terminal illness.[5]conspiracies depend on those who are under the radar and trusted, as the trial judge made clear. It seems to us that it was inevitable that the level of harm associated with the underlying offence warranted an upward adjustment of the starting point to the next category range. That meant in each of these three cases the judge was amply entitled to take the view that an immediate custodial sentence was warranted. In terms of Mr Evans, the judge was entitled to move from Category 6C to Category 5C. That meant a starting point of 26 weeks' custody with a range of up to a year. The judge had full and proper regard to the mitigating circumstances in his case and we can see nothing wrong with a sentence of four months' imprisonment. In the case of Mr Johnstone and Mr Jackson, having reflected the amount of cash that was laundered in each of their cases in terms of Category 5, it seems to us once again that there can be no argument with a term of imprisonment of eight months each. So far as suspension is concerned, again bearing in mind the nature of these offences, the sums involved and their derivation from the supply of class A drugs, it seems to us that the judge was once again amply entitled to conclude that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody, notwithstanding the mitigation available. Moreover, the absence of reassurance that a plea of guilty might have provided and the continuing denial by all three applicants, plainly entitled the judge to conclude that he could not be satisfied that there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation as a factor supporting suspension. In the result, we can see nothing wrong in principle with immediate custodial sentences in all three cases. The sentences are not arguably manifestly excessive in the circumstances we have identified. Accordingly, we refuse these applications. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk