R v Chinonye David Anyiam
[2023] EWCA Crim 846
R v Steven Cooper & Ors
4 August 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 945
Court of Appeal
Three people were sentenced for crimes and also for hiding or moving money they got from those crimes. The court decided that if hiding the money made the crime worse or showed they were more guilty, they could get extra jail time. They checked each case carefully to make sure the extra jail time was fair.
Key Facts
- •Steven Cooper: Pleaded guilty to drug supply offences and possession of criminal property (£4,791).
- •David Park: Sentenced for cheating the public revenue (£777,320) and transferring criminal property (purchase of a £3.77m property).
- •Tejay Fletcher: Sentenced for fraud offences related to the iSpoof website (global loss estimated at £100m) and transferring criminal property (£1.7-£1.9m).
Legal Principles
Totality principle in sentencing for multiple offences, particularly when one offence is under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Sentencing Act 2020, s.231(2); Sentencing Council's overarching guideline on totality (July 1, 2023); R v Greaves [2010] EWCA Crim 709; R v Alexander and Others [2011] EWCA Crim 89; R v Randhawa [2022] EWCA Crim 873.
When a Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 offence adds no additional culpability or harm to the primary offence, concurrent sentences are appropriate without upward adjustment.
R v Greaves [2010] EWCA Crim 709; R v Alexander and Others [2011] EWCA Crim 89.
If a Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 offence involves additional criminality (increased culpability or harm), an additional penalty (concurrent with upward adjustment or consecutive with downward adjustment) is justified.
R v Greaves [2010] EWCA Crim 709; R v Alexander and Others [2011] EWCA Crim 89; R v Randhawa [2022] EWCA Crim 873.
Factors indicating additional culpability/harm in Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 offences include different offending periods, additional criminal property, increased detection difficulty, risk to victim recovery, creation of additional victims, enhanced planning/sophistication, or assistance in continued offending.
R v Greaves [2010] EWCA Crim 709; R v Alexander and Others [2011] EWCA Crim 89; R v Randhawa [2022] EWCA Crim 873.
Consecutive sentences are appropriate where offences are of the same or similar kind, but concurrent sentences would not sufficiently reflect the overall criminality. This is particularly true when large sums are involved.
Attorney General’s References (Nos 7 and 8 of 2013) (R v Kallakis And Williams),R v Levene , [2013] EWCA Crim. 709; R v Timothy Schools [2023] EWCA Crim 422.
Outcomes
Cooper's appeal dismissed.
The 2002 Act offence (possession of cash) involved additional offending beyond the drug offences, justifying a consecutive sentence. The overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.
Park's appeal dismissed.
The 2002 Act offence (transferring criminal property) involved additional culpability, as the purchase of a property with fraudulently obtained funds made it harder to recover funds. The consecutive sentence, with a reduction for totality, was justified.
Fletcher's appeal dismissed.
The consecutive sentences for counts 1 & 2 (fraud) were justified due to their scale and severity. The consecutive sentence for count 4 (transferring criminal property) reflected the added culpability of using cryptocurrency to obscure the proceeds of the fraud. The total sentence, while substantial, was not manifestly excessive given the exceptional seriousness of the offending.