[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Shergill, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 451 (21 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/451.html Cite as: [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 81, [2008] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 81, [2008] EWCA Crim 451

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		21 February 2008

Thursday 21 February 2008

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: I will ask Mr Justice Collins to give the judgment of the court.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS:

1. The applicant Satnum Shergill is now aged 40. On 26 October 2007, in the Crown Court at Coventry, he was convicted of attempted kidnap (count 1). He was acquitted of conspiracy to kidnap (count 2). On 23 November 2007 he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, with a direction under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that the period of 279 days spent in custody on remand should count towards that sentence. He now renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge. For reasons which will become apparent, we propose to grant leave to appeal.
2. The offence was committed on 12 January 2007. At about 10.45pm the victim left a public house where he had been drinking with friends. He was approached by three men who went to grab hold of him and knocked him to the ground. He fought back. One of the men told him that he was to get into a van parked nearby. He continued to struggle and tried to get into his car. At that point the men got into the van and drove off. A friend of the victim had seen what was going on and contacted the police whilst the attempted kidnapping was taking place. The van was subsequently found abandoned. When it was searched the police found in it masking tape and plastic ties. It had been fitted with false registration plates.
3. It transpired that the appellant had recruited the three men to kidnap the victim. He had provided the false identity for the van, had equipped it with a "kidnapping kit", and had arranged for further transportation for the men after the van had been abandoned. The most compelling piece of evidence against him was the discovery of his DNA on an article in the van.
4. The appellant did not admit his guilt and so obtained no credit for a plea of guilty. In passing sentence the judge observed that he had been the ring leader and he had recruited the other men for the purpose of the kidnapping. That was an aggravating feature of his involvement.
5. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant are, first of all, that the sentence which was regarded by the learned judge as the correct one for an offence of this nature was too high. In addition, it is said that insufficient regard was paid to the mitigating factors which included the fact that the appellant had been of great assistance to others in the community and had been involved in the organisation of a football team. He was a successful businessman and he had used the proceeds of that business to aid charitable events.
6. The offence arose because of a dispute between him and the victim. The appellant asserted (and it may well have been correct, although the matter was not gone into in any detail) that the victim had failed to pay business debts amounting in all to over £60,000. This meant that the business had reduced and employees had had to be dismissed. It was felt that there was no other way of obtaining from the victim an undertaking to repay than by resorting to this sort of activity.
7. It is clear that this sort of activity must be discouraged. It will inevitably attract a custodial sentence of some considerable length. Taking the law into one's own hands is something which, as the authorities show, the court will treat very seriously.
8. On the other hand, we have been referred by Mr Bhatia to Attorney General's Reference No 15 of 1999 [2000] 1 Cr App R(S) 128, [1999] EWCA Crim 1483 . That was a case where the offender's home had been burgled and he formed the view that the burglary had been committed by a particular person. The offender and three other men, all wearing balaclava helmets, abducted that person from his home late one night and drove him to an isolated place. There a firearm was discharged near to his head and he was told that he must recover the property stolen in the burglary, the implicit threat being that if he did not, the firearm would be used against him rather than merely being discharged near him. It is apparent that on those facts the kidnapping in that case was more serious than in this. The court granted the Attorney General's application to refer the sentence of 18 months and indicated that the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of such a case would have been in the region of three years' imprisonment. Having regard to double jeopardy, the court substituted a sentence of two-and-a-half years' imprisonment. As Dyson LJ indicated in argument, had that case come before the court today it may well be that it would have been approached in a somewhat different fashion having regard to the use of the firearm. Nonetheless, we recognise that it suggests that four years, which was imposed in this case, is a sentence that comes at the top of the appropriate tariff for this sort of offending.
9. That brings us to the mitigation. There was material before the learned judge to which he referred. We have already indicated the general nature of it.
10. The appellant is not a man of good character. He has a number of convictions recorded against him, but the more serious ones were committed some time ago. There was an offence of blackmail, which attracted only a conditional discharge of two years in 1993, and offences of assault on the police in 1997. Apart from motoring offences and other offences of petty dishonesty, the appellant does not have a good record. He has obviously made up for his record in recent times judging by the letters of reference which we have seen. We also note that he has made good progress in prison. There are good reports on him. There is an indication that he assists other prisoners and is beneficial in that respect. We also have a letter from his wife which indicates the very damaging effect his imprisonment is having upon his family. In addition, he has shown remorse for the offence which he committed.
11. In all those circumstances we take the view that we are able to reduce the sentence which was imposed. In the light of all the matters to which we have referred, we regard the appropriate sentence in this case as one of three years' imprisonment.
12. Although the appellant is not present, we are told that counsel has authority to accept that we can dispose of the appeal today. We will therefore quash the sentence of four years' imprisonment and substitute for it a sentence of three years' imprisonment. To that extent this appeal is allowed.
13. MR BHATIA: My Lord, may I make an application for a representation order?
14. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Yes, you may and you may have it for counsel only.