Sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years and accompanied by 100-hour unpaid work requirements were appropriate in the case of two offenders who had been involved in a conspiracy to launder money. Although they had played an active part in the conspiracy by opening bank accounts, applying for mortgages and purchasing cars and properties, they had rehabilitated themselves to a considerable extent since their arrests and one was a single mother caring for two young children.
An appellant’s convictions for conspiracy to import and supply class A drugs were safe. Decisions taken during the trial by defence counsel to adduce evidence of the appellant’s previous convictions, to call a co-accused as a witness and not to correct an alleged omission from the defence statement were not unreasonable or outside the range of decisions open to competent counsel.
An extended sentence of 18 years and five months, which included a custodial term of 13 years and five months, was appropriate in the case of the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob and to three offences of having an imitation firearm with intent.
The judge’s summing-up, in a trial of three defendants on a charge of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation, was not unfair.
A sentence of 45 months’ imprisonment after an offender’s guilty plea to 13 distraction burglaries targeting elderly and vulnerable victims was unduly lenient. The judge should have applied a 10-year starting point before making a deduction for the guilty pleas, resulting in a sentence of 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.