![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Bazegurore & Anor v R. [2020] EWCA Crim 375 (21 February 2020) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/375.html Cite as: [2020] EWCA Crim 375 |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
2020] EWCA Crim 375 | ||
201804277 |
CRIMINAL
DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT AYLESBURY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE TULK)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
2020 |
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB DBE
and
HIS HONOUR JUDGE FLEWITT QC
____________________
| MIKLOVAN BAZEGURORE FATION SHUTI |
Appellants |
|
| - and - |
||
| REGINA |
Respondent |
____________________
MR RENVOIZE (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 21 February
2020
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Green:
A. The issue: Totality and the relevance of sentences imposed by foreign courts
Criminal
Law Act 1977. On 19th September 2018 the Appellants were both sentenced to terms of imprisonment of nine years.
criminality.
The judge observed the following:
"Mr Bazegurore and Mr Shuti, whilst not having previous convictions, a little over two months later were involved in an identical offence in Belgium, and I agree with the court in Ghent, that clearly shows that at that time they were heavily involved in acriminal
organisation engaged in people smuggling."
B. The position in Belgium
C. Submission of the Crown on the Merits
criminal
incidents and treated this, to some degree, as an aggravating factor. Fourth, a total sentence of 15 years for Shuti and 14 years for Bazegurore, reflecting a combination of the domestic and the Belgium sentences, would have been warranted for the two incidents had they (hypothetically) fallen to be sentenced at the same time in this jurisdiction. Fifth, the Appellants were involved in widespread, international, offending of a sophisticated nature and were part of a major trafficking organisation. Whenever offending spanned frontiers the parties must be taken to accept the risk of
criminal
penalties being imposed in different jurisdictions. Sixth, there was therefore no reason to reduce the sentences imposed here to take account of the foreign convictions and sentences, the totality of the combination of the two sets of sentences was not excessive, and nor therefore were the individual sentences imposed in this jurisdiction.
D. Submissions of the Appellants on the merits
EWCA
Civ 848; R v Bright [2008]
EWCA
Crim
462; and, R (Abedin) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 782.
E. Conclusion
"… reflects all the offending behaviour before it and is just and proportionate."
(Emphasis added)
EWCA
2149 (
Crim)
("Prenga") as roughly analogous. In that case the issue was whether there was a discretion to take into account time spent on qualifying bail or on remand awaiting possible extradition to a third country for unrelated offences, which were therefore outside of the circumstances where credit was required to be accorded as set out in the CJA 2003. In that case the court, having reviewed the earlier authorities, concluded that there was a discretion on the part of a court to adjust an otherwise lawful sentence in order to do "justice on the particular facts" (ibid paragraphs [26] and [37] - [43]). In that case the court also observed that in all processes, including
criminal
sentencing processes, there was a requirement for "finality" (paragraph [48]) and this was a relevant consideration is evaluating the overall justice of a case. This is particularly the case where parties choose not to place information before a sentencing court but, subsequently, seek to advance the argument that it was unfair for the court not to have had and acted upon full knowledge of the facts (see eg Prenga paragraph [47]). The theme running through the judgment is the need to balance justice and proportionality, on the one hand, with legal certainty and finality on the other.
criminals
engage in
criminality
spanning frontiers, they must be taken to accept the risk of
criminal
sanctions in multiple jurisdictions of potentially variable severity being imposed upon them. It is neither unjust nor disproportionate to require those engaged in international
criminality
to bear this risk.
Note 1 There is a framework at the EU level which covers inter-court cooperation in relation to the exchange of information between Member States about previous convictions: See Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new Note 2 5 years = 60 months. One third of 60 months is 20 months. Doubling the 20 months leads to a determinate sentence of 40 months ie 3 years and 4 months. [Back]
criminal proceedings (24th July 2008). [Back]