Ashley James Youngman [2019] EWCA Crim 1197
- Summary
- Citing
- Cited By
R v Ashley James Youngman [2019] EWCA Crim 1197 concerned an appeal against sentence by a 27‑year‑old man convicted on late guilty pleas of possessing criminal property contrary to section 329(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and possessing a firearm when prohibited contrary to section 21(2)(c) of the Firearms Act 1968. Mr Youngman was sentenced at the Crown Court at Norwich on 29 March 2019 to 23 months’ imprisonment on the money laundering count and one month consecutive on the firearms count, making a total of two years. He received 15 per cent credit for his late pleas. The appeal was considered by Mr Justice Edis, sitting with the Recorder of Northampton.
On 8 September 2017 Mr Youngman was arrested on an unrelated matter and found in possession of £1,575 in cash. A search of his home uncovered a safe containing £4,000 in cash and a BB gun stored in a box under the safe. No ammunition was found. Further enquiry revealed substantial unexplained cash deposits into his bank account over a significant period. Mr Youngman’s basis of plea, which was accepted by the prosecution and the judge, admitted the possession of £15,000 in criminal property, comprising the £5,575 in cash and a further £10,000 that had passed through his bank account. He stated that he had been a motor trader for four years but had no accounts or documents to show his income or outgoings. He suggested that he had traded in cars on which he had not paid tax, but did not identify the criminal source of the money or any crimes that had generated it. In relation to the firearm, his basis of plea stated that his brother had bought the BB gun as a present for Mr Youngman’s young son, that Mr Youngman had been unhappy with this and had taken possession of the gun and hidden it in a box in a bedside cabinet, and that once hidden the gun never came out of the box or left his home. The sentencing judge concluded that there was no material before the court that satisfactorily identified the criminal source of the £15,000.
In sentencing, the judge assessed the money laundering offence by reference to the relevant guideline. He found high culpability because the offending involved criminal activity of some unexplained kind conducted over a sustained period, observing that there was a sentencing difference between isolated transactions and a sustained course of conduct. The harm, assessed by reference to the amount of money involved, placed the case at the lower end of the category range of £10,000 to £100,000, which carried a starting point of three years’ custody and a sentencing range of 18 months to four years. The starting point was based on a sum of £50,000, substantially in excess of the £15,000 in this case, and the judge adjusted downward accordingly. He identified the bottom of the relevant range, 18 months, as the starting point before considering aggravating and mitigating factors. He took into account Mr Youngman’s significant criminal record, including convictions for serious violence and robbery and a previous four-year sentence of imprisonment, which had resulted in his being prohibited from possessing firearms. The present offending had extended over a substantial period during which Mr Youngman had been subject to a community order, which had expired in February 2017. Mitigation included genuine efforts at reform and compliance with previous orders, albeit compromised by the coincidence of the present offending, and personal mitigation in the form of his partner’s illness, a young child, an expected child, and a personal family tragedy. Having regard to these aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge increased the starting point of 18 months by 50 per cent to 27 months, then applied the 15 per cent discount for the late plea to arrive at 23 months. On the firearms offence, the judge applied the approach set out in R v Avis [1998] 2 Cr App R(S) 178 and observed that the weapon was a relatively harmless BB gun which had never been used and which Mr Youngman had possessed, on his own account, to prevent harm. Nevertheless, Mr Youngman was prohibited from possessing firearms by reason of his earlier four-year sentence and he knew it. The weapon could have been destroyed or handed to the police but he chose to keep it. The judge imposed one month’s imprisonment consecutive to the sentence on count 1.
On appeal, counsel Mr Oliver submitted that the judge had failed to apply the guidelines properly in relation to the money laundering sentence and had failed to reflect adequately the significant mitigating factors. He advanced these arguments in concise but forceful written and oral submissions.
The Court of Appeal rejected the submission that the sentence of imprisonment should have been suspended, agreeing with the judge that immediate custody was inevitable given the seriousness of the offences and Mr Youngman’s significant criminal history. However, the court was unable to agree that the starting point of 18 months required an increase of 50 per cent in relation to the money laundering count. The only aggravating features identified in the guideline were previous convictions and the failure to comply with current court orders. There were no substantial mitigating features identified in the guideline in respect of the money laundering offence, but in the 18 months since arrest Mr Youngman had not offended and had been earning a legitimate income to support his family. There were other mitigating factors not identified in the guideline but nevertheless material to the case. The court considered that the aggravating and mitigating features were in a sense opposite sides of the same coin, reflecting a history of significant offending which aggravated the position but also demonstrating a cessation of that conduct for a significant period and a compromised level of compliance with court orders. Taken overall, the court considered that it was reasonable to make some increase to reflect the aggravating factors notwithstanding the mitigating features, but that an increase from 18 months to 21 months would have sufficed. A discount in the region of 15 per cent produced a sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment. The court regarded the explanation for the possession of the firearm as extraordinarily and at first blush implausible but noted that the judge had accepted it and was bound by it. It considered that the judge had been entirely right to reduce very substantially the sentence that would ordinarily be imposed on a man with a serious criminal record for violence found in possession of a significant weapon, and that the consecutive term of one month was appropriate and did justice to the case having regard to the basis of plea to the fullest extent possible. The court declined to interfere with that sentence. It allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the sentence of 23 months on count 1 and substituting a sentence of 17 months, which would run consecutively to the one month on count 2, making a total sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. In short, the appeal succeeded to a limited extent, reducing the total sentence from two years to 18 months.