Aran Singphila [2019] EWCA Crim 1497
Summary
Aran Singphila v R [2019] EWCA Crim 1497 concerned an appeal against sentence by Mr Aran Singphila, who had been sentenced in the Crown Court at Southwark on 13 March 2019 by His Honour Judge Hehir to a total term of eleven years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Males, Mr Justice Edis and His Honour Judge Marson QC sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal) dismissed the appeal.
Mr Singphila had been convicted by a jury of false imprisonment, blackmail and possession of cocaine with intent to supply, and pleaded guilty to possession of a knuckleduster. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for false imprisonment, a concurrent eight years for blackmail, a consecutive three years for possession of cocaine with intent to supply, and a concurrent nine months for possession of the knuckleduster, making a total of eleven years. The offences were committed during the currency of an eighteen-month community order imposed in October 2017 for sending grossly offensive messages by electronic communication. The judge revoked that order but imposed no separate penalty.
The false imprisonment, blackmail and knuckleduster offences occurred on 2 September 2018. Mr Singphila was driving in Sidcup when he saw Mr Sean Palmer in the street and decided to extort money from him, claiming that Mr Palmer owed him money arising from a prior cocaine transaction. He ordered Mr Palmer into his car and detained him for three and a half hours, driving him to three separate locations. He repeatedly threatened serious violence, demanding first £200 and then £500, and brandished a knuckleduster and a golf club, swinging the club towards Mr Palmer and threatening to stab him. Mr Palmer telephoned friends and family to try to raise money, and his brother Mr Alan Palmer recorded the calls and conversations with Mr Singphila, during which Mr Singphila also threatened violence to Mr Alan Palmer. Mr Singphila humiliated Mr Palmer by calling his contacts and asking what he should do with his prisoner. Eventually someone called the police, who arrested Mr Singphila. Upon searching him and his vehicle, the police recovered the knuckleduster, a modest quantity of cocaine, cash and mobile phones. Examination of the phones showed that Mr Singphila had been operating as a street-level cocaine dealer for an appreciable period.
Mr Singphila was twenty-eight years old at sentence. He had seven convictions for eleven offences, dating from 2005 to 2017, including common assault, criminal damage, an offence contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 in 2007 (for which a significant custodial sentence was imposed), battery in 2010, possession of a Class A drug in 2017, and the offence for which the community order had been imposed.
The sentencing judge, who had presided at trial, found on the evidence that Mr Singphila had been operating as a cocaine dealer and that Mr Palmer was one of his customers. The judge found that the two had known each other since secondary school and that Mr Singphila knew Mr Palmer was a vulnerable man with mental health difficulties. The judge found that Mr Singphila was a sinister individual willing and able to use the threat of immediate violence to intimidate others and that he knew Mr Palmer was vulnerable and capable of being terrorised into giving money. The judge did not think that Mr Palmer actually owed the appellant any money, but did not consider that relevant. The judge considered the jury had plainly rejected a suggestion that the incident was a scam by Mr Palmer to trick his brother out of money.
The judge applied the guideline for possession of drugs with intent to supply and found that Mr Singphila was a street dealer with a significant role, which would involve a starting point of four and a half years’ custody with a range extending to six years. In the absence of guidelines for false imprisonment or blackmail, the judge considered the decision in Attorney General’s Reference Nos 92 and 93 of 2014 [2014] EWCA Crim 2713. The judge identified several aggravating features: the detention exceeded three hours; there were threats with two different weapons; considerable fear was caused; the victim’s vulnerability; the continuing effect on Mr Palmer; and the fact that the offences were committed in furtherance of illegal drug dealing. The judge noted the absence of aggravating features such as detention in particular premises, the use of violence, or tying the victim up, but observed that the commission of offences during the community order was itself aggravating. The judge found no substantial mitigation, though he had before him a letter from Mr Singphila and character references. He noted that the inevitable prison sentence would affect the appellant’s family adversely but said that was Mr Singphila’s fault. The judge did not find Mr Singphila dangerous but took the view that a significant determinate sentence was required, which would also protect the public. He said he reduced all three sentences to reflect totality before imposing them.
On appeal, Mr McNamara, who had appeared below, submitted that the correct starting point for false imprisonment and blackmail should have been five to six years after considering totality. He referred the court to the Attorney General’s Reference and R v James [2015] EWCA Crim 339, acknowledging that detailed comparison with earlier cases was of only limited value.
The Court of Appeal started with the drugs offence. Mr Justice Edis, giving the judgment of the court, said that a sentence of five years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate for that offence alone, given the appellant’s previous convictions and the fact that he was clearly running his own business over a significant period. The sentence of three years was therefore very significantly discounted to reflect totality and to avoid double counting, that is, avoiding taking into account in aggravation of the blackmail and false imprisonment the fact that it was done in pursuance of an illegal business when that business itself resulted in a consecutive term. The court noted that the judge had said he discounted the drugs offence and also discounted the sentences for false imprisonment and blackmail, and made the offensive weapon sentence concurrent for the same reasons. That presumably meant the sentence for false imprisonment and blackmail might have been ten years had they stood alone, which might have been somewhat above the level in the Attorney General’s Reference but not by very much.
The court agreed with the submission that detailed comparison with earlier cases was not particularly productive and that there was a broad range from which the judge must select. The court held that the most significant factor was the vulnerability of the victim and the significant adverse ongoing consequences for him. The judge had well in mind the points in the appellant’s favour: the detention was spontaneous and not pre-planned; it lasted three and a half hours rather than a day; and no physical violence was used. The judge acknowledged those factors in assessing sentence. The court considered that any excess which may be detectable in the sentences for false imprisonment and blackmail was more than compensated by the adjustment made to the sentence for the drugs offences. Having regard in particular to the term for the drugs offences, the court considered that the total of eleven years could properly be described as severe but could not properly be described as manifestly excessive. The judge had plainly formed a view on the evidence about the appellant and reflected that view, as he was entitled to, in the sentence passed.
In short, the Court of Appeal held that a total sentence of eleven years for false imprisonment, blackmail and drugs offences committed against a vulnerable victim while engaged in street-level drug dealing was severe but not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal.
Mr Singphila had been convicted by a jury of false imprisonment, blackmail and possession of cocaine with intent to supply, and pleaded guilty to possession of a knuckleduster. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for false imprisonment, a concurrent eight years for blackmail, a consecutive three years for possession of cocaine with intent to supply, and a concurrent nine months for possession of the knuckleduster, making a total of eleven years. The offences were committed during the currency of an eighteen-month community order imposed in October 2017 for sending grossly offensive messages by electronic communication. The judge revoked that order but imposed no separate penalty.
The false imprisonment, blackmail and knuckleduster offences occurred on 2 September 2018. Mr Singphila was driving in Sidcup when he saw Mr Sean Palmer in the street and decided to extort money from him, claiming that Mr Palmer owed him money arising from a prior cocaine transaction. He ordered Mr Palmer into his car and detained him for three and a half hours, driving him to three separate locations. He repeatedly threatened serious violence, demanding first £200 and then £500, and brandished a knuckleduster and a golf club, swinging the club towards Mr Palmer and threatening to stab him. Mr Palmer telephoned friends and family to try to raise money, and his brother Mr Alan Palmer recorded the calls and conversations with Mr Singphila, during which Mr Singphila also threatened violence to Mr Alan Palmer. Mr Singphila humiliated Mr Palmer by calling his contacts and asking what he should do with his prisoner. Eventually someone called the police, who arrested Mr Singphila. Upon searching him and his vehicle, the police recovered the knuckleduster, a modest quantity of cocaine, cash and mobile phones. Examination of the phones showed that Mr Singphila had been operating as a street-level cocaine dealer for an appreciable period.
Mr Singphila was twenty-eight years old at sentence. He had seven convictions for eleven offences, dating from 2005 to 2017, including common assault, criminal damage, an offence contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 in 2007 (for which a significant custodial sentence was imposed), battery in 2010, possession of a Class A drug in 2017, and the offence for which the community order had been imposed.
The sentencing judge, who had presided at trial, found on the evidence that Mr Singphila had been operating as a cocaine dealer and that Mr Palmer was one of his customers. The judge found that the two had known each other since secondary school and that Mr Singphila knew Mr Palmer was a vulnerable man with mental health difficulties. The judge found that Mr Singphila was a sinister individual willing and able to use the threat of immediate violence to intimidate others and that he knew Mr Palmer was vulnerable and capable of being terrorised into giving money. The judge did not think that Mr Palmer actually owed the appellant any money, but did not consider that relevant. The judge considered the jury had plainly rejected a suggestion that the incident was a scam by Mr Palmer to trick his brother out of money.
The judge applied the guideline for possession of drugs with intent to supply and found that Mr Singphila was a street dealer with a significant role, which would involve a starting point of four and a half years’ custody with a range extending to six years. In the absence of guidelines for false imprisonment or blackmail, the judge considered the decision in Attorney General’s Reference Nos 92 and 93 of 2014 [2014] EWCA Crim 2713. The judge identified several aggravating features: the detention exceeded three hours; there were threats with two different weapons; considerable fear was caused; the victim’s vulnerability; the continuing effect on Mr Palmer; and the fact that the offences were committed in furtherance of illegal drug dealing. The judge noted the absence of aggravating features such as detention in particular premises, the use of violence, or tying the victim up, but observed that the commission of offences during the community order was itself aggravating. The judge found no substantial mitigation, though he had before him a letter from Mr Singphila and character references. He noted that the inevitable prison sentence would affect the appellant’s family adversely but said that was Mr Singphila’s fault. The judge did not find Mr Singphila dangerous but took the view that a significant determinate sentence was required, which would also protect the public. He said he reduced all three sentences to reflect totality before imposing them.
On appeal, Mr McNamara, who had appeared below, submitted that the correct starting point for false imprisonment and blackmail should have been five to six years after considering totality. He referred the court to the Attorney General’s Reference and R v James [2015] EWCA Crim 339, acknowledging that detailed comparison with earlier cases was of only limited value.
The Court of Appeal started with the drugs offence. Mr Justice Edis, giving the judgment of the court, said that a sentence of five years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate for that offence alone, given the appellant’s previous convictions and the fact that he was clearly running his own business over a significant period. The sentence of three years was therefore very significantly discounted to reflect totality and to avoid double counting, that is, avoiding taking into account in aggravation of the blackmail and false imprisonment the fact that it was done in pursuance of an illegal business when that business itself resulted in a consecutive term. The court noted that the judge had said he discounted the drugs offence and also discounted the sentences for false imprisonment and blackmail, and made the offensive weapon sentence concurrent for the same reasons. That presumably meant the sentence for false imprisonment and blackmail might have been ten years had they stood alone, which might have been somewhat above the level in the Attorney General’s Reference but not by very much.
The court agreed with the submission that detailed comparison with earlier cases was not particularly productive and that there was a broad range from which the judge must select. The court held that the most significant factor was the vulnerability of the victim and the significant adverse ongoing consequences for him. The judge had well in mind the points in the appellant’s favour: the detention was spontaneous and not pre-planned; it lasted three and a half hours rather than a day; and no physical violence was used. The judge acknowledged those factors in assessing sentence. The court considered that any excess which may be detectable in the sentences for false imprisonment and blackmail was more than compensated by the adjustment made to the sentence for the drugs offences. Having regard in particular to the term for the drugs offences, the court considered that the total of eleven years could properly be described as severe but could not properly be described as manifestly excessive. The judge had plainly formed a view on the evidence about the appellant and reflected that view, as he was entitled to, in the sentence passed.
In short, the Court of Appeal held that a total sentence of eleven years for false imprisonment, blackmail and drugs offences committed against a vulnerable victim while engaged in street-level drug dealing was severe but not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal.
The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a knuckleduster and was convicted of false imprisonment, blackmail and possession of cocaine with intent to supply. He was sentenced to a total term of 11 years’ imprisonment.
The appellant was driving when he saw the victim, who he said owed him money. He told him to get into the car and drove him around, against his will, for 3.5 hours. The victim was threatened with serious violence unless he met with the demands for money. The threats were reinforced by the appellant brandishing a golf club and the knuckleduster. The victim made calls to try and raise the money; one call was to his brother who recorded the threats made. When the appellant was arrested, his phone was seized and revealed he was, and had been for an appreciable time, operating as a street-level dealer in cocaine. The offences against the victim were said to have been committed in furtherance of the illegal business of dealing in drugs.
Held: in the circumstances, given the commission of serious offences, against the background of the on-going drug-dealing business, the total term was severe but not manifestly excessive.
The appeal was dismissed.