R v Bohannan (Mark Edward)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LEVESON |
| Judgment Date | 21 September 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Crim 2261 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No: 201001912 A2 |
| Date | 21 September 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Crim 2261
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Before: Lord Justice Leveson
Mr Justice Davis
Mr Justice Lloyd Jones
No: 201001912 A2
Mr M Bromley-Martin QC appeared on behalf of the applicant
Mr P Wright QC appeared on behalf of the Crown
(As approved)
: On 12 February 2010, in the Crown Court at Southwark, following a trial lasting some six weeks before HHJ Loraine-Smith, Mark Bohannan (“the offender”) was convicted of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. On 12 March 2010, he was sentenced to a term of three years’ imprisonment. Her Majesty's Attorney General now seeks to refer the sentence to this court as unduly lenient pursuant to the provisions of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. We grant leave.
In short, the offender, who is now 47 years of age, was a serving police officer in the Metropolitan Police Service Territorial Support Group with the rank of Constable and the role of Field Intelligence Officer.
In his capacity as a police officer he received and had access to intelligence, the details of ongoing police operations and the personal details of private citizens. In particular, he had access to confidential and sensitive material held upon computer systems available to police officers for use in the course of their duties. Syed Imtiaz Ahmed (“Ahmed”) was the principal of a drug dealing organisation responsible for the sale of cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis. The organisation had been operating in South London from at least 2001. Ahmed supplied cocaine to Denise Bohannan, the wife of the offender. Denise Bohannan was a long-term user of cocaine.
From 2002 the offender provided assistance to Ahmed in respect of his drug-dealing activities. He regularly supplied both sensitive and confidential information held by the police in respect of intelligence, police operations and the confidential details of private citizens in whom Ahmed and his associates had an interest. The information was usually provided via Denise Bohannan to Ahmed, from whom she received cocaine without payment. The information allowed the extensive and highly lucrative drug dealing of Ahmed to flourish and go unchecked and unpunished for a period of five to six years. In particular, and of special significance, the information included tipping off Ahmed in respect of an impending search at an address occupied by a dealer employed by him and the identification of areas in the locality in which police operations were in existence. The information provided was in order that such areas could be avoided by Ahmed and his associates, thereby reducing the risk of detection.
The facility provided by the offender also enabled Ahmed and his associates to gain access to intelligence and information held by police in respect of suspected criminal activity. By this facility Ahmed and his associates could gage whether their own criminal activity was at risk of detection or compromise. In addition, the material disclosed concerned the personal details of individuals in respect of whom Ahmed or his associates wished to locate for their own purposes, or because they were concerned about their identity as a possible informants or stooges.
In addition to the supply of cocaine to Denise Bohannan, on one occasion Ahmed made a cash payment to the offender in the sum of approximately £200 in return for services. He also left occasional sums of money on the kitchen table. In all between August 2002 and 2007 some 471 checks were carried out by the offender on behalf of Ahmed and his associates.
We add some further details at this stage. Prior to the commencement of the trial the offender offered to plead guilty and did plead guilty to a lesser alternative allegation of misconduct in public office on the basis that he had not conspired with Ahmed, but only acted at the behest of his wife. That plea was not accepted and the lengthy trial ensued. At the same trial the offender's wife was similarly convicted of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office and she was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
Having entered into an agreement under section 73 of the Serious and Organised Crime Police Act 2004, Ahmed had previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply drugs of Class A and Class C, and conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. He gave evidence in the trial that followed in accordance with that agreement, and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for the drugs conspiracies and two years’ imprisonment concurrent for conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, that is to say, his involvement in the conspiracy with the offender to obtain confidential and sensitive details from the offender in breach of his public duty.
The factual basis of the convictions are outlined in the reference in detail, although Mr Bromley-Martin QC for the offender contends that they put the Crown's case at its highest and do not necessarily reflect the findings of fact of the learned judge. We have examined his criticisms with care and recognise that a number of the facts upon which Mr Wright QC for the Attorney General relies are implicit rather than explicit within the judge's sentencing remarks, with perhaps one or two exceptions which we have modified accordingly. It is sufficient to say that we do not consider that, within the reference that we have seen, Mr Wright has unfairly characterised the factual basis upon which the offender fell to be sentenced. Having said that, it is necessary to set out these facts in some detail.
As we have recounted, the offender was a police officer undertaking the role of Field Intelligence Officer for Team 4 of the Territorial Support Group 4 based at Catford Police Station. Denise, his wife, had been a user of cocaine since the 1990s and Ahmed supplied her with drugs. Denise Bohannan's daughter (the stepdaughter of the offender) was in a relationship with a man named Richmond, who himself was connected to Ahmed and similarly engaged in the drugs trade. Since at least 2002 Ahmed had been heavily engaged in the supply of Class A and C controlled drugs. He employed runners and street dealers to supply drugs to users. It was an extensive network and highly lucrative. He obtained his drugs through an organised criminal gang.
Richmond was engaged by Ahmed as a dealer. On occasions runners or recipients of drugs would fail to account for monies received in respect of the sale of drugs, or run up a debt. Ahmed used the facility provided by the offender, whether through his wife or otherwise, to trace defaulters via confidential information held on police computer in respect of themselves, members of their family or associates. Such information was given without any regard for the potential consequences to those whose details were provided in this way.
In addition, the offender provided information to Ahmed and for onward transmission to his drug suppliers in respect of intelligence held upon them and others, and in order to protect them from detection. Examples of this conduct include the interrogation of computer indices in order to enquire whether a particular individual was or was not the target of a police operation, and whether individuals may on arrest or as informants have provided any information that could lead to the disruption or detection of the drug dealing business of Ahmed and his associates or suppliers. Ahmed visited the home address of the offender on occasions when information was supplied to him, either by the offender or his wife.
A number of specific instances of the offender's conduct that reflect the range of his activity ought to be provided. Thus in August 2002 John Payne was a user of drugs supplied by Ahmed. Payne was in debt to Ahmed. The offender provided Ahmed with details held on the police national computer in respect of Payne in order that Ahmed could find him and enforce the debt.
After they arrested the offender a police issue kitbag seized from Catford Traffic Garage contained a document that was a printout of the Police National Computer record of Payne, together with personal details and addresses. The document bore the fingerprints of the offender, Denise Boltzmann and Ahmed. In the same period the offender interrogated police computers in order to obtain further details in respect of the Payne and his whereabouts, including the home of Payne's mother. As a consequence Ahmed caused a visit to be made to her address in the search as to the whereabouts of Payne.
Secondly, also in August 2002 the offender searched police computers on behalf of Ahmed in respect of Tony Famurewa and Levi Wales, associates of Ahmed who had been stopped by the police in the vicinity of Ahmed's home address. The purpose of the search was to establish what, if any, information was known by the police concerning Famurewa and Wales and the drug dealing activities of Ahmed.
A third example occurred in 2003. Dawn Dodd was employed on a temporary basis at an estate agency owned and run by Ahmed. The offender was tasked with interrogating police national computers in respect of her identity. Ahmed was concerned that she could be an undercover police officer. The interrogation of police records and personal details also included addresses of members of Dodd's family.
Donald Stainer was an associate of Ahmed and involved in drug dealing with Philip Filugelli, the supplier of Ahmed and a senior member of an organised criminal gang. At the behest of Filugelli, Ahmed caused checks to be made upon Stainer,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sentencing remarks: R v Oliver Perry-Smith
...trust reposed in them, and to maintain public confidence he referred to what was said by Leveson LJ in A/G Reference No.30 of 2012 [2010] EWCA Crim 2261 (supply of information by a police officer to a drug dealer) that, “punishment and deterrence are always important elements in these cases......
-
Public Prosecutor v Tay Sheo Tang Elvilin
...814; [2007] 2 SLR 814 (refd) PP v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang [2007] 4 SLR (R) 753; [2007] 4 SLR 753 (folld) R v Mark Edward Bohannan [2010] EWCA Crim 2261 (refd) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6 (b) Tan Kiat Pheng and Christine Liu (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the ......
-
R v Lindsay Murray
...prepared by the prosecution prior to the sentencing hearing. As regards the appellant, it drew attention to the decision of this court in R v Bohannan [2010] EWCA Crim 2261. The prosecution identified two aggravating features: the first was the prolonged and repeated nature of the offending......
-
R v Gurpal Singh Shehri
...the severe impact his prison sentence has had on his young family and his ill wife and father. 13 However, this court in the case of R v Bohannan [2010] EWCA Crim 2261, an Attorney General's reference case, emphasised that punishment and deterrence are always important elements for cases su......