Dang & Ors v R
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD
- MR JUSTICE BURTON
- MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DBE
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Sentencing Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Four individuals were convicted for their involvement in a conspiracy to produce and supply cannabis. The appellants challenged their convictions and sentences on various legal grounds. The court examined statutory interpretations and previous case law to determine the validity of the charges and the appropriateness of the sentences. Ultimately, the court upheld the convictions and sentences, finding that the indictment was legally sound, the evidence supported the convictions, and the sentencing guidelines were properly applied.
Judgment
Lord Justice Pitchford :
Introduction
There is attached to this judgment an Appendix in which are identified the names of the applicants and appellants, the convictions and sentences in respect of which they make application for leave to appeal and/or they appeal against sentence. Also listed are the dates of relevant pleas of guilty and verdicts of guilt, and the disposal of counts on which verdicts were not required. Manh Toan Dang, Hung Tuan Dang and Van Quan Dang seek leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by the single judge, Foskett J. Freddie Ross Johnson seeks leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by the single judge, Simon J. All the appellants appeal against sentence with the leave either of Foskett J or of Simon J. For completeness we record that Shaun Byrne’s application for leave to appeal against conviction and his appeal with leave against sentence have been adjourned. We wish to express our thanks to His Honour Judge (“HHJ”) Hone QC, the trial and sentencing judge, and to Foskett J and Simon J, for the care that they have taken to express their reasons for the decisions they have respectively made. Henceforward we shall for convenience refer to each of the applicants or appellants as “the appellant”.
The indictment
At the Central Criminal Court the appellants faced a consolidated indictment containing five counts. Count 1 charged them that, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2010 they conspired together and with other persons “to be concerned in the production of a controlled drug, namely Cannabis, by another in contravention of section 4(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”. In count 2 they were charged that, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1971, between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2010, they conspired together and with other persons “to produce a controlled drug, namely Cannabis, in contravention of section 4(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”. Count 3 charged Van Quan Dang, Manh Toan Dang and Hung Tuan Dang that on 6 June 2010 they falsely imprisoned Nicole Voak and Joshua Andrew and detained them against their will. Count 4 charged Van Quan Dang, Manh Toan Dang and Hung Tuan Dang that on 6 June 2010 without lawful excuse they damaged an Audi Estate motor vehicle belonging to Joshua Andrew contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. In count 5 Nhien Van Dang was charged alone with concealing crimin