Neilton Campbell [2019] EWCA Crim 1450
- Summary
- Citing
- Cited By
Neilton Campbell [2019] EWCA Crim 1450 was an appeal against sentence heard by the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal and quashed the period of disqualification from driving that had been imposed alongside a term of imprisonment.
Mr Campbell pleaded guilty on 4 June 2018 to conspiracy to supply diamorphine and conspiracy to supply cocaine. On 21 December 2018 at Worcester Crown Court, His Honour Judge Nicholas Cartwright sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. For a summary offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence on 2 May 2018, the appellant’s licence was endorsed with three penalty points and he was disqualified from driving for 18 months, extended by three years and expressed to commence upon his release from custody. The single judge granted leave to appeal solely on the question of the disqualification and penalty points, noting that the disqualification and penalty points appeared to be unlawful and that the disqualification may have been assessed on a wrongful factual basis. Counsel confirmed that the appeal was not pursued in relation to the custodial sentence.
The conspiracy to supply class A drugs ran from at least 1 January, and the only evidence of vehicle hire for travel to Worcester related to the later period of March through to May. When sentencing, the judge stated that because the appellant had been using a motor car for travelling to Worcester as part of his involvement in the county lines business, it was appropriate to disqualify him.
The respondent conceded that there was no proper evidential basis to support a conclusion that the appellant had driven any vehicle in the formation of the conspiracy. Under section 147(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, a court has discretion to impose disqualification when sentencing for drugs conspiracies, but only where a vehicle was used directly in the formation of the conspiracy itself. It is not sufficient that the vehicle was used in acts of furtherance of the conspiracy. The court applied the principles from R v Riley [1984] 5 Cr App R (S) 35 and R v Gorry [2018] EWCA Crim 1867. The evidence showed that vehicle hire occurred in March and April into May, whereas the conspiracy was accepted to have begun by 1 January. Accordingly, the court held that there was no evidential basis to meet the criteria for disqualification under section 147(3).
The court went on to consider whether to substitute a discretionary period of disqualification in respect of the summary driving offence pursuant to section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Where a court imposes a custodial sentence for another offence, it is required to consider what increase is required in the period of disqualification to comply with section 35B(2) and (3) of the 1988 Act, to account for the diminished effect of disqualification when the offender is also detained in custody. The court referred to R v Needham [2016] 2 Cr App R (S) 26.
The court considered that the gravamen of the overall case was a serious conspiracy to supply drugs, not bad driving against a previous history of such offending. The court was mindful of the need for the appellant’s prospect of rehabilitation not to be impaired on his release by a disqualification which might affect his employment prospects. The court held that in all the circumstances a period of disqualification was not necessary and quashed it. The endorsement of three penalty points on the appellant’s licence for the driving offence was preserved. In short, the disqualification was unlawful because there was no evidential basis that any vehicle was used in the formation of the conspiracy, and no discretionary disqualification was appropriate for the summary driving offence.