Meikiel Dixon-Nash and Others [2019] EWCA Crim 1173

**R v Meikiel Dixon-Nash, Claudette Dixon and Melique Coote [2019] EWCA Crim 1173** concerned appeals by conviction against sentences imposed at Wood Green Crown Court for conspiracy to transfer firearms, with the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Green, Mr Justice Julian Knowles and His Honour Judge Mayo) allowing the second appellant’s appeal in part, reducing her sentence from fourteen years to eleven years, whilst dismissing the other two appeals.

Mr Meikiel Dixon-Nash, aged 27, was convicted of conspiracy to transfer firearms and sentenced to a determinate term of twenty years’ imprisonment. His mother, Mrs Claudette Dixon, aged 46, was convicted of the same offence and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Mr Melique Coote, aged 16 and a younger brother of Mr Dixon-Nash, was convicted of the same offence and sentenced to eight years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

The conspiracy involved three prohibited firearms: a Russian-made Baikal pistol, a Colt 45 handgun and a Mach 10 sub-machine gun. The offending took place in the context of a decade-long vendetta between two rival north London gangs, the Northumberland Park Killers and the Wood Green Mob, who were involved in violent confrontations over territory and drug distribution. The Baikal was linked to two shootings in March and May 2017. On 26 March 2017 shots were fired into the home of a rival gang member. On 1 May 2017, following a violent confrontation at a charity event in which Mr Dixon-Nash was present, shots were fired by members of the NPK gang in a car park; Mr Dixon-Nash was identified on CCTV and his mobile phone with his DNA was recovered from the scene. Mr Coote was seen on CCTV after the shooting speaking on the phone to Mr Dixon-Nash and was tasked with finding and removing spent bullets from the scene. On 18 May 2017, Mr Coote handed the Baikal to Mr Kwuame James-Brown in an alleyway, following phone contact between Mr Dixon-Nash, Mr James-Brown and Mr Coote. Mr James-Brown was arrested in possession of the Baikal and subsequently pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and received seven years’ imprisonment. On 13 October 2017 police raided premises belonging to Mrs Dixon’s father, to which she had access. She and Mr Coote were observed removing items, including a bag containing the Colt 45, which was recovered from the boot of their car. A search of the premises revealed a locked trunk containing the Mach 10; Mr Coote’s DNA was found on the weapon and Mrs Dixon held keys to both the house and the trunk. Whilst in custody awaiting trial, Mrs Dixon made approximately nine hundred telephone calls in which she instructed her sons to destroy evidence, change phone numbers, erase email accounts and devise an explanation for the presence of DNA.

The sentencing judge had regard to the guidance given by Lord Thomas CJ in Attorney General’s References Nos 128–141 of 2015 and Nos 8–10 of 2016 [2016] EWCA Crim 54. That case involved a sophisticated criminal enterprise distributing firearms and ammunition to criminals across the country. The Court in that case laid down that for the leader of such an enterprise a very long determinate sentence was required, with a starting point of twenty-five years before plea. The sentencing court should reflect the hierarchy of the supply enterprise, the role played in individual transactions and previous convictions. For defendants below the level of the leader, sentences should reflect the sentence for the leader depending on the role played. For purchasers of weapons a starting point of approximately fifteen years was appropriate, and for those assisting in putting guns into circulation it was inappropriate to start below eight years.

Permission to appeal was granted by the single judge on the basis that the Attorney General’s Reference involved a sophisticated nationwide distribution network, whereas the present case involved storing and transferring a small quantity of weapons for a particular criminal group. The question arose whether the guidance applied in cases factually different from the Reference case. All three appellants argued that their sentences were manifestly excessive.

In relation to Mr Dixon-Nash, the Court noted that the sentencing judge had expressly referred to the Attorney General’s Reference. The judge found that Mr Dixon-Nash had been the leader of the conspiracy, involved in the vendetta for approximately ten years, directing the transfer of weapons for at least six months and involved in at least one shooting. He had recruited both his mother and younger brother. The weapons were used in two incidents, one involving shots fired at a rival gang member’s home and the other a shooting in a public car park where Mr Dixon-Nash was present. Mr Dixon-Nash knew the weapons would be used for attempted murder and other offences. He had previous convictions including conspiracy to commit violent disorder arising from a gang-related stabbing, and the judge had regard to bad character evidence of long-term involvement in gang crime. The judge considered but rejected a life sentence or an extended sentence. The Court observed that whilst some factors in the present case were less serious than in the Attorney General’s Reference (such as the geographical scope and sophistication), others were more serious (including Mr Dixon-Nash’s personal involvement in downstream violence, the ten-year duration of the gang vendetta and his recruitment of family members). The Court inferred that the judge must have taken a starting point of approximately eighteen years before aggravating the sentence to twenty years to reflect previous convictions and bad character, which was seven years below the twenty-five year starting point for a leader in the Attorney General’s Reference. The Court held that this was well within the judge’s discretion and dismissed the appeal.

In relation to Mrs Dixon, the judge found that she was in possession of keys to her father’s house where weapons were stored, that she was a key facilitator involved in storing and transferring firearms, and that she knew full well the weapons were intended to terrorise, maim and murder. Her outward appearance of respectability provided the perfect cover. The intercepted prison calls demonstrated that she was far from naïve, directing her sons, encouraging them to destroy evidence and concocting explanations. She had involved her youngest son in the offending, which was shameful. The judge found that Mr Coote was more involved than his mother. The Court rejected arguments that the judge had conflated offences of possession with intent to endanger life with the offence of transfer, holding that the judge was entitled to treat the appellants’ knowledge of the intended use of the weapons as an aggravating feature. The core issue was whether a sentence of fourteen years was commensurate with the eighteen-year starting point for Mr Dixon-Nash (before aggravation for previous convictions). The Court noted that even the most culpable key facilitator in the Attorney General’s Reference received a sentence five years below that of the leader, whilst the least culpable received a sentence nine years below. Mrs Dixon was found to be the least culpable of the three appellants and her degree of involvement was significantly less than Mr Dixon-Nash’s. The Court held that the difference between her sentence and that of the leader should have been around seven years, reflecting a sentence of eleven years. The appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced accordingly.

In relation to Mr Coote, the judge found that he was heavily involved in the conspiracy, transferring the Baikal to Mr James-Brown under his brother’s direction, being active in seeking to remove incriminating evidence and continuing to be involved in storage after the police had seized one weapon. His DNA was found on the machine gun. He was aware of the likely uses and devastating damage the weapons could cause. He had a previous conviction for possessing an offensive weapon. The judge found that he was more involved than his mother and that, had he been an adult, his sentence would have been higher than hers. The judge expressly took into account the definitive guideline for sentencing children and young people. The Court inferred that the judge had applied a starting point of approximately fifteen or sixteen years for an adult and then discounted by about fifty per cent to arrive at eight years. The Court held that the differential between Mr Coote and Mr Dixon-Nash of approximately four to five years was one the judge was entitled to reach. Even if the differential should have been greater, the generous discount for age compensated for any under-reflection of the difference. The appeal was dismissed.

In short, the Court dismissed the appeals of Mr Dixon-Nash and Mr Coote but allowed the appeal of Mrs Dixon, reducing her sentence from fourteen years to eleven years on the ground that a greater disparity from the sentence of the leader was necessary properly to reflect her lesser role in the hierarchy of the conspiracy.

Avis & Others [1998] 2 Cr App R (S) 178, [1998] 1 Cr App R 420
Wilkinson and Others [2009] EWCA Crim 1925; [2010] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 100
Stephenson and Others [2016] EWCA Crim 54; [2016] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 12