R v Darshan Singh Rathoor & Ors

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT NOTTINGHAM (HIS HONOUR JUDGE MICHAEL AUTY KC) [T20221790] Case No 2024/01928/A4, 2024/02018/14 Tuesday 9 December 2025 2024/02013/A4, 2024/01878/A4 2024/02034/A4, 2024/02000/A4 [2025] EWCA Crim 1815 B e f o r e: LADY JUSTICE MAY MR JUSTICE BRYAN SIR ROBIN SPENCER ____________________ R EX - v - DARSHAN SINGH RATHOOR INDERPAL SINGH SIRVAN RATHOOR KHALSA-JOGGA SINGH-DIGPAL JAMES EDWARD RAGGETT NERVER SINGH ____________________ A P P R O V E D J U D G M E N T ___________________ A P P E A R A N C E S: Mr D James appeared on behalf of Appellant Darshan Singh Miss J King appeared on behalf of the Appellant Nerver Singh Mr R J Bryan appeared on behalf of the Applicant Khalsa-Jogga Singh-Digpal Miss L Pitman appeared on behalf of the Appellant Sirvan Rathoor Mr R Thatcher appeared on behalf of the Appellant Inderpal Singh Mr J Harrison appeared on behalf of the Appellant James Edward Raggett Miss S L Knight appeared on behalf of the Crown ________________________________ MR JUSTICE BRYAN: 1. These appeals against sentence in the case of all the appellants (leave having been granted by the single judge), and the renewed application for leave to appeal sentence in the case of the applicant Khalsa-Jogga Singh-Digpal, relate to sentences of imprisonment passed upon them on 3 May 2024 in the Crown Court at Nottingham by His Honour Judge Michael Auty KC ("the judge") in relation to one count of Conspiracy to Kidnap, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (count 1) and (in most cases) one count of Conspiracy to Blackmail, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (count 2). 2. The Conspiracy to Kidnap was taken as the lead offence to reflect the totality of the offending, with a concurrent sentence being passed (where applicable) in respect of the count of Conspiracy to Blackmail. Each of the appellants, and the applicant, submit that the sentence passed in respect of them was manifestly excessive. 3. The circumstances leading up to sentence, and the sentences passed, were as follows: 1. Darshan Singh Rathoor – On 2 February 2023, the appellant ("Darshan Rathoor") (then aged 56) pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 2, and on 3 May 2024 he was sentenced by the judge to 16 years' imprisonment on count 1, and to a concurrent term of eight years' imprisonment on count 2, a total sentence of 16 years' imprisonment. 2. Inderpal Singh – On 24 February 2023, the appellant ("Inderpal Singh”) (then aged 33) pleaded guilty to count 1, and on 12 October 2023 he changed his plea to guilty on count 2. On 3 May 2024 he was sentenced by the judge to 14 years' imprisonment on count 1 and to a concurrent term of seven years' imprisonment on count 2, a total sentence of 14 years' imprisonment. 3. Sirvan Rathoor – On 2 February 2023 the appellant ("Sirvan Rathoor") (then aged 29) pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 2, and on 3 May 2024 was sentenced by the judge to 13 years' imprisonment on count 1 and to a concurrent term of six years and six months' imprisonment on count 2, a total sentence of 13 years' imprisonment. 4. Khalsa-Jogga Singh-Digpal – On 8 December 2023, following a trial in the Crown Court at Nottingham before the judge and a jury, the applicant ("Singh- Digpal") was convicted on counts 1 and 2 and was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment on count 1, and to a concurrent term of nine years' imprisonment on count 2, a total sentence of 18 years' imprisonment. 5. James Edward (Jamie) Raggett – On 1 November 2023, the appellant ("Raggett") changed his plea to guilty for count 2; and on 30 November 2023 he changed his plea to guilty for count 1. On 3 May 2024, the appellant (then aged 20) was sentenced by the judge to 12 years' imprisonment on count 1 and to a concurrent term of six years' imprisonment on count 2, a total of 12 years' imprisonment. We note at the outset that in circumstances where Raggett was under 21 at the time of conviction, the sentence as pronounced was unlawful. It should have been a sentence of detention in a Young Offender Institution. That is a point to which we will return in due course. 6. Nerver Singh – On 24 February 2023, the appellant ("Nerver Singh”) (then aged 54) changed his plea to guilty for count 1. No evidence was offered against him on count 2, with a not guilty verdict being entered on count 2. On 3 May 2024, he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on count 1. 4. The offending involved a plot to kidnap the complainant, Gurpal Singh, with the aim of blackmailing his father, Didar Singh, into handing over a substantial ransom for the safe return of his son. 5. The appellant Darshan Rathoor was the prime orchestrator and conspirator. He had inside knowledge of Gurpal and Didar Singh, who at the time considered him to be a friend of the family. He recruited others to assist him in his plan to extort a huge sum of money (£250,000, which was later increased to £300,000). 6. In addition to Darshan Rathoor, the conspirators included: (1) Sirvan Rathoor, who Darshan Rathoor's son; (2) Nerver Singh, who was a close family friend; (3) Inderpal Singh, who was Darshan’s nephew; (4) another male who was a close friend of Inderpal Singh (for whom an arrest warrant remains outstanding – hereinafter referred to as the "Other Male"); (5) Singh-Digpal, who was the husband of Darshan’s niece; and (6) Jamie Raggett, who was employed by Singh-Digpal in Portsmouth, where they both lived. 7. A female called Tiffany Mellors, who was associated with the Other Male, was caught up in the conspiracies, but she was acquitted at trial of the charges against her. 8. Phone evidence, combined with evidence from the victims and their family, indicated that Darshan Rathoor was the director of the conspiracy. Inderpal Singh was recognised by Gurpal Singh as one of the men responsible for kidnapping him, and he was a key link with the Other Male and Tiffany Mellors in luring Gurpal Singh to where he was eventually kidnapped 9. Sirvan Rathoor was a key link between different co-conspirators and was important in obtaining a van which would be collected from a man named Jatinder Tumber and which would be fitted with false number plates. The van would be used to ferry Gurpal Singh to various hostage locations from Sneinton to Wollaton to Top Valley. Nerver Singh made available his business premises at The Little Carpet Company in Wollaton and his home address at Revelstoke Way in Top Valley, for the purpose of holding Gurpal Singh hostage there. 10. Singh-Digpal was a significant henchman. He travelled up specially from Portsmouth to Nottingham and was deployed to increase the pressure on Didar Singh in making hostile, aggressive and threatening ransom calls to him. Jamie Raggett was recruited to help Singh- Digpal in making the ransom demands to Didar Singh. He was a trusted employee of Singh- Digpal at his takeaway business in Portsmouth. 11. The complainant, Gurpal Singh, was aged 41 to 42 at the time of the incidents. He was married and he and his wife and two young adult sons lived with extended family members in the Aspley area of Nottingham. They were members of the Sikh community in Nottingham and this formed part of their connection to Darshan Rathoor. 12. A false story was concocted to entrap Gurpal Singh into attending an address where he would be kidnapped. The plans were initially due to be executed in early December 2021, but they were foiled when it was discovered that Gurpal Singh was not travelling alone. In this regard, on 9 December 2021, a female providing her name as "Nafeesa" contacted Gurpal Singh by phone. She said that she had learnt that he impersonated Bollywood actors and provided such entertainment at parties and weddings. This was true, and it was evidence that someone who knew him was behind the plot. "Nafeesa" said that she wanted to book Gurpal Singh for her father's surprise 60th birthday party at a property in The Park in Nottingham. She said that it would be a garden party in a marquee at her home. The event was due to take place on 17 December 2021. 13. Three days prior to this, Tiffany Mellors had been used to book a property, The Coach House, in The Park in Nottingham, through an Airbnb account which she set up in her own name. "Nafeesa" followed up her phone call with text messages about the arrangements. The plan at that stage was to meet on 13 December 2021, but this was re-arranged to the following day, 14 December. 14. There was phone traffic in the early hours of 14 December between Inderpal Singh, the Other Male and Tiffany Mellors. As the time for the meeting approached on the evening of 14 December, cell site for the phones of Inderpal Singh and the Other Male indicated that the phones were in the vicinity of The Coach House. 15. Gurpal Singh was travelling to the venue with his wife. It appeared that they had been seen. The plan would not work if he was not on his own. "Nafeesa" contacted Gurpal and made up a story that her auntie was ill and had been rushed to hospital and that the meeting and the party were cancelled. The conspirators took time to re-group. 16. On 14 February 2022, Gurpal Singh and his wife attended a family wedding at a venue just outside Nottingham. It was a special occasion and Gurpal Singh was wearing his jewellery, which was customary within the Sikh community. Out of the blue he received a call from a male, who said his name was "Gulfar", who referred back to "Nafeesa" and the surprise birthday party. That call was made by Inderpal Singh. The man on the phone referred to Gurpal as "Paul", which was the stage name he used for the Bollywood type events, but he had not given out this name before. He asked to meet Gurpal the next day as his uncle was coming from Oxford and had more information about his father, for whom it appeared the party was still being arranged. This all sounded plausible and genuine to Gurpal. 17. The conspirators were putting plans in place prior to this date. On 12 February 2022, plans were put in place to obtain a van which would be used to ferry Gurpal Singh from place to place during the period he remained captive. Darshan Rathoor contacted Roshan Tumber, who obtained permission from his father, Jatinder Tumber, to lend out his van. Sirvan Rathoor went to collect the van on 12 February 2022 from a location in Loughborough. That day, and into the early hours of 13 February, Inderpal Singh and the Other Male remained in frequent contact. The Other Male was also in frequent contact with Darshan Rathoor. 18. By 7.46 am on 14 February 2022, the Mercedes van obtained from Jatinder Tumber had been fitted with false number plates. It was stored in an outside carpark very near to Inderpal Singh's home address. Within about half an hour of this happening, Inderpal Singh topped up a mobile phone number ending 7740 at a nearby Co-op store. By early evening Inderpal Singh was in touch with Darshan Rathoor and then with Tiffany Mellors. 19. At just after 3 pm, Tiffany Mellors made an Airbnb booking for an address at 41 Manor Street in Sneinton. The owner of that property received a message that the person who wished to book it was helping her sister move and get settled in Nottingham for work. Once the booking was confirmed, Tiffany Mellors contacted Inderpal Singh who then contacted Sirvan Rathoor. 20. Inderpal Singh called Gurpal Singh, who tried to call him back. The van had been moved by this point. Phone activity showed interactions between Darshan Rathoor with Inderpal Singh and Sirvan Rathoor, and Inderpal Singh back with Sirvan Rathoor. Sirvan Rathoor's number was used to call Gurpal Singh, and then Sirvan Rathoor called Inderpal Singh. 21. Following the wedding event on 14 February, Gurpal Singh and his wife had gone to stay overnight in a hotel and they had gone out for dinner in Leicester. Gurpal Singh was still wearing his jewellery. Due to these arrangements he was not free that night. After calling Gurpal Singh, Inderpal Singh immediately contacted the Other Male. There was then phone contact between Sirvan Rathoor and Darshan Rathoor. 22. The plan was for Gurpal Singh to go to 41 Manor Street in Sneinton at 3.30 pm. Phone evidence indicated that Inderpal Singh was already in place at that address by this time. Gurpal Singh travelled alone in his black Toyota Yaris. He arrived at the property and rang the number that had been given to him. A male came out of the property and they shook hands. He was ushered inside. Gurpal recognised the voice of that man as the same person who had called him. That was Inderpal Singh. 23. Within moments of Gurpal Singh's arrival, there was a chain of communications between Inderpal Singh, Sirvan Rathoor, Darshan Rathoor and Nerver Singh. The moment that Gurpal Singh stepped over the threshold of 41 Manor Street, he had misgivings. He was directed into the kitchen and asked to take a seat. 24. Out of the blue a male emerged from a toilet. He was dressed all in black and was wearing a balaclava. That male, and another male, similarly clad, then subjected Gurpal Singh to a brutal attack. All three of the males laid into him. He was punched to the head. He fell to the floor. His rings and watch were removed from him. At that time one of the males told the others not to remove his bangle, which was an important religious item, and told the other not to disrespect him. They continued, however, to attack Gurpal Singh. They kicked him in the ribs and face and stamped on his head. Blood was gushing from his nose, which seemed to have caused the attacker to desist at that point. 25. One of the men in black then put his arm around Gurpal Singh's neck and squeezed it so hard that Gurpal believed that he was about to be killed. The male then let go and all three attackers resumed hitting him. He was told to sit down at the table. The men bound his hands very tightly with cable ties. They sat him in a chair and bound his legs with gaffer tape. He was told that if he co-operated, nothing would happen to him. He was smacked in the head again and was bleeding. He pleaded with the men that he had not done anything wrong and that they must have the wrong person. He pleaded with them to stop. 26. Gurpal Singh was informed that somebody would be coming "in a bit". They told him that they knew where he worked, who his father was, and that they knew that he lived with his father. They knew that his brother ran a fish and chip shop. Those details were accurate, indicating that they had personal knowledge about Gurpal and his family. 27. About seven people then entered the kitchen. One removed Gurpal's mobile phone from his pocket, together with his wallet. One male took his money (more than £300) and his cards, and then put the wallet back. He was threatened that if he did not co-operate it would be his last day. They said that they would phone his dad and asked for the passcode to his phone. He was beaten again when he gave the wrong number. He explained that he needed to actually see the phone in order to remember the code. It was about 4.30 to 4.45 pm by this time. 28. At around this time the first of nine attempted calls were made from Darshan Rathoor's 7436 number to Didar Singh's mobile number, and three to the family home landline number. By this time Darshan Rathoor was aware that Gurpal had been taken hostage. Didar Singh was not at home when this sequence of calls was made and he did not have his mobile phone with him. When he arrived home and saw all the attempted calls he tried to ring back the number which had been calling him. He then tried to call his son. 29. At around this time there was phone traffic between Inderpal Singh, who was still at 41 Manor Street, and Tiffany Mellors and Sirvan Rathoor. Within a couple of minutes the van was on the move. By this stage Gurpal Singh thought that there were just two people left in the room. He was told: "You'll co-operate. We've got a van outside. You're getting in that van and we're taking you somewhere". He was told that they would call his father. 30. Gurpal then had more gaffer tape strapped around his head. It was over his eyes so that he could not see properly. A knife was then placed against his mouth and he was told to open his mouth. He felt the sensation of the knife being used to make a slit in the gaffer tape which allowed him a small space to breathe through the gap. He then felt the nose of a gun pressed against his cheek and teeth. He was told: "You know what this is. You try anything and you're gonna be very, very sorry". 31. He was then dragged to a van. He thought that he would resist and hopefully that the neighbours would see what was happening. He tried to put himself on the ground and he pleaded with the kidnappers not to hit him. He was told to get up; he was pulled back to his feet and then thrown into the van. As he lay in the back of the van the gaffer tape was cut off his legs. He was able to see a tiny bit through the gaps of the gaffer tape over his eyes. He was looking for the door of the van. One male was driving. Another male sat on top of him and accused him of trying to be clever. He told his accomplice to stop driving and told Gurpal that he could not be trusted. The driver then got out, opened the side door and struck Gurpal a few times. A few males were there by then and they taped Gurpal up some more. 32. He was then grabbed by his legs and flung onto the concrete ground outside the van. He thought that he had been in the van for 15 to 20 minutes, which was accurate as he had been transported from Sneinton to The Little Carpet Company in Wollaton, the business owned by Nerver Singh. Gurpal could not see anything. He was attacked again and felt the gun being pressed against his head and ribs. His clothes were cut off and shredded. 33. He recalled being at those premises for several hours. At one point he fell asleep. He was then dragged back to the van and taken to another property. This was Nerver Singh's home at 85 Revelstoke Way in Top Valley. He was told to keep quiet. They said that they were taking him home, but this was not true. 34. Didar Singh explained that, on the day of the incident, he found multiple missed calls before he received a connected call. The man who spoke to him told him: "We've got your son. And we need money from you". The ransom figure was sent at £250,000. 35. Didar Singh tried to call the Darshan Rathoor 7436 number back. He also tried to call his son again, both without success. Darshan Rathoor then instantly contacted Inderpal Rathoor; and Sirvan Rathoor tried to contact Singh-Digpal. At 7.40 pm Didar Singh tried to call the 7436 number again. Using a different number, Darshan Rathoor called Singh-Digpal. A burner phone purchased by Sirvan Rathoor was activated just after 8 pm, and that number, 7214, was then used to call Didar Singh. 36. At almost 9 pm, the 7214 number made a further call to Didar Singh. A different male asked him if he had arranged the money. He said that he had not. He was told that if he wanted his son back he needed to get the money. Didar Singh called his nephew who came round with other family members straightaway. 37. By late evening Singh-Digpal started to leave Nottingham with his wife and father to make the journey back to Portsmouth, having earlier attended at the Gurdwara for a special event at which Darshan Rathoor was also present. Throughout the early hours of the next morning there were further communications between the conspirators. 38. By this time, Gurpal Singh was being held at Nerver Singh's home address. During the many hours that he had been held hostage, he had wet himself several times. His kidnappers took him to the toilet. They removed his trousers for him to sit on the toilet and they removed the cable ties from his hands and also removed his Sikh bangle. This corresponded with a text message that the police later retrieved which said: "Tell Indi I need a bangle". 39. Whilst Gurpal was permitted to use the toilet, he was required to have one hand still taped up. He was able to use his other hand to wipe himself. After that the kidnappers re- tied the cables around his hands. Some liquid was squirted on him by the "Muslim bod" (thought to be the Other Male). Gurpal believed the liquid to be petrol. It was squirted into his face, onto his clothes and onto the floor. He thought that he was about to die. His legs were re-taped. He was now wearing just his boxer shorts and socks. The kidnappers also re- taped his head. 40. Gurpal was told that they were ringing his dad and that he would be able to go home once his father had got back to them. They then shut him in a room. 41. Communications between the conspirators continued. Phone analysis showed that Darshan Rathoor contacted Singh-Digpal at around 11 am, and that shortly after that Raggett and Singh-Digpal were in contact. Singh-Digpal then called Darshan Rathoor. This was a significant call because, as Singh-Digpal was still on the line with Darshan Rathoor, he persuaded a local street cleaner, Mr Ockenden, near his home in Portsmouth to lend him his phone. He then wandered away with the phone, out of the hearing of Mr Ockenden, in order to make a ransom call to Didar Singh. This was done deliberately to disguise the identity and source of the call. Mr Ockenden said that he did not see anyone else using his phone, although Singh-Digpal later lied that Raggett took the phone from him and made that call. At that time Raggett was back in the area where he lived in Liphook in Hampshire. 42. The ransom amount was increased to £300,000. Didar Singh asked for time. Following that ransom call, Darshan Rathoor was in touch with Singh-Digpal and then with Sirvan Rathoor. 43. Gurpal Singh was still being detained at 85 Revelstoke Way. He thought that he had been there for an hour or two when one of the men (the man who had been driving the van) came back and said to him: "Why is your dad being a stubborn bastard?" One of the men kicked Gurpal in the ribs and chest. 44. Gurpal was told that he would make one phone call to his father so that he could hear his voice and know that he was still alive. He was given strict instructions to just say: "Dad, please give them what they want. I really want to be home by tonight". He was told that if he said anything else he would be killed. He was also threatened that his fingers would be chopped off and sent to his father. Didar Singh heard his son's voice, and then another male spoke down the phone threatening that if he called the police he would lose his son. 45. At one point Gurpal told his kidnappers that he had an "uncle" (a Punjabi word meaning not a blood relative, but a link through marriage) called Darshan, who was well known in Nottingham. The kidnappers replied that if Gurpal's father were clever, he would call him (albeit that they knew that Darshan was himself at the heart of the plot). 46. The call in which Gurpal spoke to his father was made just after 1.15 pm from Inderpal Singh's 7740 number. The kidnappers told Gurpal that his father wanted more time. A short while after that Gurpal fell asleep. 47. By this stage, Didar Singh's other son had called the police at 1.30 pm and, following advice from the police, he and Didar had left the family home and were being supported elsewhere by a specialist officer. 48. Early that afternoon, there were communications between Inderpal-Singh and Darshan Rathoor. Singh-Digpal was then in contact with Raggett. Messages were exchanged setting out leaving times from Portsmouth. Singh-Digpal said that the reason for his return trip to Nottingham, so soon after he had arrived back in Portsmouth, was to collect some important papers for his father. This was not true. He and Raggett had been recruited to lend weight to the conspiracies. 49. During Singh-Digpal's and Raggett' journey up to Nottingham, Singh-Digpal called Darshan Rathoor. At 5.16 pm, Didar Singh called Darshan, whom he thought was his friend. Within 15 minutes of that call, Darshan Rathoor called Singh-Digpal. Within 30 minutes of that dialogue, the first of 18 ransom calls was made from a number which stated "withheld" for Didar Singh, but which was Raggett’s number. 14 of those calls connected. It was the Crown's case that both Singh-Digpal and Raggett made those calls from the car in which they were travelling. The calls, whoever they were made by, were threatening and aggressive. 50. Meanwhile, many relatives and friends had been gathering at the home address of Gurpal and Didar Singh as the ransom demands were being made. Gurpal's wife explained how they rallied the help of family and friends to try to meet the ransom demands. She kept a list of the significant contributions that were made by the relatives and friends who had gone to their banks and withdrawn thousands of pounds. Darshan Rathoor kept up the duplicity by also "donating" £3,000 when he turned up pretending to act as a generous and supportive friend. 51. At one stage a call was answered by one of Didar's relatives who then passed it to Darshan Rathoor to talk to the blackmailers. Darshan gave his name, clearly to make the co- conspirators realise it was him. He told the co-conspirators that they had £50,000. At one point Darshan asked if Didar had called the police and Darshan was adamant that Didar should not call them. 52. Another friend of Didar Singh became suspicious that the person, or the people, behind this must be someone who knew Didar as they were aware that he had a lot of jewellery and had told him, in one of the ransom calls, to sell his gold jewellery to raise the money. This friend aired his concerns with Didar and suggested that Darshan Rathoor might be involved. 53. At one point, Darshan was sitting with other friends and relatives in a car outside, as it was so busy inside the house. The friend recalled Darshan's phone ringing and that Darshan got out of the car and walked away to take the call. After the call was over he got back in, but the same thing happened and he got out of the car again, on two further occasions, to take calls. At this point Darshan Rathoor was maintaining contact with those holding Gurpal hostage, and with Singh-Digpal who was with Raggett. 54. A meeting was arranged between Sirvan Rathoor and Singh-Digpal and Raggett at a KFC takeaway restaurant near junction 26 of the M1. Ransom calls were continuing to be made from the 9156 number. Cell site evidence later showed that they were consistent with use in the vicinity of the KFC. Singh-Digpal was repeatedly in contact with Sirvan Rathoor. 55. Singh-Digpal texted Darshan after the penultimate ransom call: "Can you call me please". Darshan called him and then called Inderpal Singh. The final ransom call was made. Following this, Sirvan Rathoor called Singh-Digpal, and then Singh-Digpal and Raggett headed back towards Portsmouth. Didar Singh tried repeatedly to call the 2925 ransom payment number. 56. Gurpal Singh meanwhile woke up and was told that he was to be moved to another room. This was done aggressively. He was left there for a while and was shouting out. He managed to get to his feet. He reached a door and tried to find the keys. He knocked over a mop which fell to the ground and the noise alerted his captors. They came back in and asked him how he had got to his feet. He said that he had been calling out for ages. He was thirsty and needed water. He was told that he could not have any water and to sit down. More tape was wrapped around his body. He was told that his father would not be coming, and he was dragged into another room. 57. By late evening on 17 February there was a flurry of communications between Darshan Rathoor and Singh-Digpal, between Nerver Singh and Sirvan Rathoor and Inderpal Singh, and between Sirvan Rathoor and the Other Male. These were subsequently believed to have been consistent with discussions to abort the kidnap and blackmail. 58. Gurpal Singh was taken back to the van. He was told that they were taking him home and to shut up. He asked if they had his bag, but he received no reply. The van appeared to be being driven aggressively. Suddenly the van stopped. The back doors were opened and Gurpal was told that he could find his own way home. 59. A knife was used to cut the tape a little bit. He thought that he was going to be stabbed. He was flung into some bushes and pushed very hard, injuring one knee and grazing the other as he fell to the ground. He tried to turn to see what was going on, but all he saw was a white transit van being driven quickly away. 60. He did not realise where he was at first. He was wearing only his socks and boxer shorts. He just started walking. It was a residential area and he recognised the name of a pub and realised that he was near a relative's house. He went and banged on the door, but no one recognised him due to the state he was in. The white van came back at speed round the corner. Gurpal continued to bang on the door and called out that he had been kidnapped. He shouted for them to ring his wife and brother. 61. The residents then called 999. The police attended promptly and provided assistance to Gurpal. They carefully cut the tape that bound and gagged him. He had been held hostage for almost 32 hours. He was taken by ambulance to hospital and was treated for his injuries. He sustained linear bruises to his wrists, multiple small bruises to his chest and abdomen, multiple grazes to the right side of his back, multiple grazes to both ankles, a swollen and tender right hand, a tender right elbow with reduced range of movement, and tenderness to the chest wall, abdomen and both arms and legs. He underwent a CT scan which showed that he had not sustained any internal or bony injuries. He was prescribed analgesia and discharged home. 62. The police investigation into the incident involved meticulous analysis of mobile phone communications, cell site evidence and the movement of known vehicles, alongside the evidence of Gurpal and Didar Singh and their family members. The pattern of activity and intercommunications between the conspirators was uncovered. 63. The conspirators were due to be arrested at the same time on the enforcement day, 12 May 2022. The Other Male had already fled. Darshan and Sirvan Rathoor were arrested at their home address. Darshan Rathoor declined to comment. Sirvan Rathoor provided three prepared statements in which he denied any involvement. Inderpal Singh made no comment in interview. Singh-Digpal was arrested at his home address in Portsmouth. He made no comment in interview. Jamie Raggett was arrested at his home address in Liphook, Hampshire. He admitted that he had travelled to Nottingham with Singh-Digpal and said that he had allowed Singh-Digpal to use his phone and that he fell asleep. Singh-Digpal gave his phone back to him, but had deleted all the calls he had made. He said that he did not know the purpose of travelling to Nottingham. Nerver Singh was arrested at his home address. He made no comment in interview. 64. The judge had before him the antecedent history of each of the defendants. He did not take account of the same in the sense of as an aggravating factor in any case, but he took into account, in the case of Sirvan Rathoor and of Nerver Singh, the fact that they were of previous good character. 65. The judge proceeded to sentence the appellants and the applicant without pre-sentence reports, no doubt due to the seriousness of the offending and inevitable lengthy custodial sentences. In relation to Raggett, there was a pre-sentence report (in respect of previous offences), a Probation Progress Report, and a letter from Surrey Care Leavers' Service. In relation to Darshan Rathoor there was also a psychological report. There were letters of remorse before the judge from Darshan Rathoor and Singh-Digpal. There were also character references for Inderpal Singh, Sirvan Rathoor and Singh-Digpal. 66. There were three Victim Personal Statements from the kidnap victim, Gurpal Singh, dated 4 September 2023, 13 January 2024 and 26 April 2024; and one from his father, Didar Singh, the recipient of the blackmail demands, dated 3 February 2024. We have been provided with a very recent further Victim Personal Statement from Gurpal Singh, dated 3 December 2025, which evidences that the psychological harm is continuing with diagnoses of severe trauma and PTSD, with the damage to his mental health being regarded by him as "irreparable". 67. In his Victim Personal Statements Gurpal Singh stated, amongst other matters, that: "This whole incident has completely shattered my world and that of my family and I struggle to come to terms with what happened every single day. During the time I was held captive I was stripped of my clothing, I had tape put over my face, hands, legs and upper body. I was kicked, punched, and had a gun held to me. I was not allowed to use the toilet and was forced to mess myself. I was totally humiliated and put in so much fear that I thought I was going to die. I have been left with lasting injuries both physical and mental. … I cannot emphasise enough how the experience has impacted on me and my life in a negative way. I have been unable to work since this has happened due to stress, anxiety, and depression, all brought on because of the kidnap and the extreme violence I suffered. I am unable to sleep, I have nightmares and flashbacks, very unpleasant visions of the incident, day and night, and it leaves me feeling exhausted and zoned out all the time. … I am in fear of all of the people involved and do not feel safe, when I go out to the shop or anywhere else. I am always looking over my shoulder, and so I do not go out very often and stay at home, often feeling like a prisoner in my home. If I am at home, I am looking out the window at every car that goes past my house or anyone that comes to the door, in case it is someone seeking retribution. This constant worry leaves me in a state of terror, and I do not see an end to it. I am also in fear for my wife and my children, my brother and his wife and children, and my parents." 68. In his Victim Personal Statement Didar Singh stated, amongst other matters, that: "When Gurpal was kidnapped, I was called on my mobile phone constantly by the kidnappers. They put me under a huge amount of pressure to raise money for the ransom. I felt desperate and called upon friends and family to help raise the money. One of the friends I asked to help was Darshan Rathoor. I have known Darshan for a number of years and considered him a friend and acquaintance. He attended my home and offered money towards the ransom. Little did I know that he was behind the kidnap and had betrayed me in the worst possible way. When I was told that he was involved, I was extremely scared for the safety of my family and felt very vulnerable. I now feel that I cannot trust anyone. I am guarded with everyone I meet, and it has caused a strain on my friendships and relationships with family members. In the period following the kidnap I became very ill and was bedridden for a while. My mental health was affected, and I became very depressed. … The long-term effects are still felt to this day. I constantly worry about my family every single time they leave the house, and the constant stress has an effect on my health and wellbeing. My wife has also been impacted by the stress and spent time in hospital during the trial … I cannot emphasise enough how damaging this has been to us all as a family and things will never be the same again." 69. There was a Prosecution Opening Note for Sentence and an Addendum Note for Sentence and Defence Sentencing Notes for Darshan Rathoor, Inderpal Singh (together with an Addendum Sentencing Note), Singh-Digpal and Nerver Singh (in respect of whom there was also a Written Basis of Plea). 70. In his sentencing remarks in relation to Darshan Rathoor and the nature of the conspiracies, the Judge stated as follows: "It is beyond any sensible rational doubt that you, Darshan Rathoor, were the mastermind behind this truly wicked and audacious scheme, the sole purpose of which was to extort as much money as you possibly could from Didar Singh, a man, I am quite certain on the evidence that I heard at trial and to which I have referred in passing today, that … had you been for a moment in genuine need and approached him for help, [he would have] offered it to you willingly because I judge him to be a man of integrity and character – a man who places a high premium on the welfare of others. One of the most despicable and deplorable aspects of what occurred in this case, and in a case that is absolutely replete with such characteristics, is the fact that you were not merely a part of the same community, but purported and held yourself out to be Didar Singh's friend, and masqueraded, certainly for a time, as someone genuinely trying to help him in his desperate effort to put the ransom together to attempt to secure the safe return of his beloved son, [Gurpal]. When in truth, throughout your role was that of Trojan horse, lurking in the shadows of his misery and suffering; there to assess, in part at least, how best to pursue and maximise the ransom demand, motivated exclusively by greed. Ruthlessly determined and worse still, worse than being casually indifferent to his family's suffering, you cynically sought to exploit it to maximise your intended gains." 71. In relation to the co-conspirators, and Darshan Rathoor's role in relation thereto, the judge stated: "You deliberately recruited willing and enthusiastic associates from within your family to help with this scheme – Inderpal Singh, your nephew; Sirvan Rathoor, your son, someone of whom it has rightly been said hitherto has had no involvement with the Criminal Justice System, you recruited to be a part of this misery; Khalsa Jogga Singh-Digpal, also known to us as Chris Singh, your niece's husband; and indirectly, Jamie Raggett, his trusted assistant; Nerver Singh, a long-standing and close friend of yours, who has – as Ms King, his learned counsel, says a number of vulnerabilities, which I do not doubt for a moment – you exploited in much the same way as you did others." 72. The judge also rightly noted that: "… one of the most chilling, audacious, and utterly wretched aspects of this case is that all the violence, all the threats, the genuine terror that was engendered by what you chose to do to that man were all unnecessary. Why? Because when finally [Gurpal] Singh was actually allowed to speak to his father, he was allowed to utter but two sentences. He was not allowed to tell his father what was happening to him. He never told his father that he had been threatened with what he took to be a gun, that he believed that he was going to be shot, that he was going to be strangled to death, that he may be stabbed to death, or that he may be immolated, burnt alive. This was torture for the pleasure [of] torture. It had no other purpose because Didar Singh never knew about it. So, it could not reinforce the blackmail." 73. The judge acknowledged that there was (at the time) no guidance published by the Sentencing Council in relation to the offences, and he referred to numerous authorities that were of assistance. In this regard he referred to Attorney General's Reference Nos 92 and 93 of 2014 [2014] EWCA Crim 2713, and that the appropriate approach is to consider, first, the appropriate sentence for conspiracy to kidnap, and then to make an appropriate allowance for the considerable aggravation represented by the conspiracy to blackmail. 74. He also referred to a number of further authorities, including Attorney General's Reference Nos 102 and 103 of 2014 [2014] EWCA Crim 2922. From that case he derived the general proposition that the appropriate starting point for a case of hostage-taking and a ransom demand made in circumstances without any further aggravation, was one of 16 years' imprisonment. 75. The judge also referred to: R v Atwell [2014] EWCA Crim 3023; R v Mahmoud & Ors [2015] EWCA Crim 441 (in which a starting point of 18 years' imprisonment was approved); R v Harris Saqib [2022] EWCA Crim 213; and R v Said Ahmad & Ors [2010] EWCA Crim 3133. In that case the court observed at [12]: "Every case will turn on its own facts and there are obvious difficulties in trying to read across the facts of one case to those of another." 76. The judge found particular assistance from the factors that are relevant in assessing seriousness identified in R v Needham [2022] EWCA Crim 545 at [20]: "What can be drawn from the authorities are the factors which are relevant in assessing seriousness. They are as follows: (1) The length of the detention; (2) The circumstances of the detention, namely location, method of restraint and any humiliating treatment of the victim; (3) The extent of the violence used, including whether what was done might be described as torture; (4) Whether weapons were used; (5) Whether the kidnapping was planned; (6) Whether there was evidence of particular psychological or other effect on the victim following the offence and, associated with that, whether the victim was vulnerable; (7) How many people were involved; (8) Whether the offence involved demands of money from or threats made to others, in particular where such demands or threats were made directly to others; (9) Whether the kidnapping was associated with other criminal behaviour." 77. In relation to (1), the length of detention, the judge noted that the period of detention was substantial (32 hours), and that the period of such detention also resulted in trauma to the victim, and to his father as reflected in the Victim Personal Statements. 78. In relation to (2), the circumstances of the detention in terms of location, method of restraint and any humiliating treatment, the present case was a truly appalling one. The victim was assaulted at 41 Manor Road, and he was dragged into a van with absolutely no regard for his wellbeing whatsoever, his head and other areas were not protected from the concrete or from the floor of the van. His ultimate destination at Nerver Singh's home address, resulted in his lying on a cold hard floor, he was bound and gagged on no fewer than five separate occasions, being virtually embalmed with gaffer tape, which was completely unnecessary and gratuitous. His eyes could have been covered easily enough. There was never any need to humiliate him. He was deprived of any food or appreciable drink; he was humiliated by being left to soil himself, both in terms of urine and faeces, and left in a state of soiled undress, as well as being robbed of his jewellery, including his bangle. The judge identified that this factor raised the starting point very significantly. There was also property taken from Gurpal Singh, as reflected in the Victim Personal Statements (jewellery, watches and rings (estimated in value at £10,000) none of which was recovered). This included his bangle, which would have been of particular significance to him. 79. In relation to (3), the extent of the violence used and whether what was done might be described as torture, the judge, whilst recognising that there could be cases in which grievous bodily harm resulted, concluded that the complainant was undeniably a victim of torture. At a time when he could scarcely see a thing, he twice had something cold and metallic pressed against his flesh and was told that it was a gun. He believed that his life was in jeopardy. That had followed him being strangled when he had already believed that his life was about to end. He could not see what it was, and it mattered not whether it was a gun, loaded or not – he believed that it was, and that his life might be snuffed out at any moment. The attackers threatened to cut off his fingers and send them to his father, and they poured petrol over him. He believed that he might be burnt alive. 80. In relation to (4), whether weapons were used, the complainant was stamped on to the head in the kitchen of 41 Manor Road which could have resulted in fatal or life threating injury, and there was the use of what had the appearance of a gun, and the presence and use of a sharp knife (if only used to slit the tape covering the complainant's mouth). 81. In relation to (5), whether there was planning, the kidnapping was planned and in its own way, sophisticated. The ruse of the genuine 60th birthday party, the renting of the properties, the significant cooling off period after the first aborted attempt, the use of burner telephones and the like, all indicated a degree of sophistication and planning. 82. In relation to (6), whether there was evidence of particular psychological or other effect on the victim following the offence and, associated with that, whether the victim was vulnerable, there was evidence from the Victim Personal Statements of substantial psychological damage. 83. In relation to (7), the number of people involved, there were at least seven people involved, and very probably more. 84. In relation to (8), whether the offence involved demands of money from or threats made to others, in particular where such demands or threats were made directly to others, there were demands for substantial sums of money, up to and including £300,000 made to the victim's father; and significant terror was engendered by the amounts demanded, the unrealistic timeframe provided, and the manner of delivery of the threats and demands. 85. In relation to (9), whether the kidnapping was associated with other criminal behaviour, the judge concluded that it was not (although there was, of course, the separate serious offence of conspiracy to blackmail which was itself a serious aggravating factor). There were also the items that were stolen, including items of substantial cultural significance for the victim. 86. We interpose at this point that it will be seen that just about every factor identified in Needham applied, and in respects that increased the seriousness of the offending. 87. The judge identified three further aggravating factors: (1) Darshan Rathoor masqueraded as a true friend, at least for a time, and others plainly had given their encouragement to Gurpal Singh to go and seek his wise counsel. (2) The involvement, cynical as it was, of Aaron Ockenden to mask the true behaviour of Singh-Digpal, that led to Mr Ockenden's arrest and his detention. He was taken to Nottingham, before being turned out of the police station in the cold dark of night and left to return south. Mr Ockenden was a quiet, unassuming man, who did not ask for this for a moment. (3) The degree of sophistication and persistence, characterised, as it was, by the van, the false number plates, the use of Airbnb and the like. 88. After considering, and stepping back from, the imposition of a life sentence, in particular in the case of Darshan Rathoor, the judge then turned to dangerousness. Whilst he recognised elements of dangerousness in the characters of certain defendants, namely Darshan Rathoor, Inderpal Singh, and Singh-Digpal, he declined to make any finding of dangerousness. He considered that lengthy determinate sentences would obviate the need to pass extended sentences (had he made any such finding). 89. Before turning to the individual sentences, the judge addressed credit for the guilty pleas. Nerver Singh received full credit of one third for his early guilty plea. The judge afforded Darshan Rathoor not just 25 per cent credit (as was appropriate for the time of his pleas) but what he described as 30 per cent (in fact 33 per cent), as he did with Inderpal Singh and Sirvan Rathoor, which was more than generous, and indeed was greater than was appropriate having regard to the timing of their guilty pleas and the relevant Sentencing Council Guideline. We shall return to the implications of this later in the judgment. Jamie Raggett was given a little over ten per cent (for his late guilty pleas), which was itself generous. Singh-Digpal was not entitled to any credit as he was found guilty following a trial. 90. The judge took Darshan Rathoor as the lead conspirator and indicated that the sentence at trial would be 24 years' imprisonment (to represent the totality of his offending), with (in the event) one-third discount for his guilty plea. He passed a sentence of 16 years' imprisonment on count 1, with a concurrent sentence of eight years' imprisonment concurrent on count 2. 91. The judge then addressed sentence in relation to each of the remaining defendants as follows: (1) Inderpal Singh, whom he assessed as being an "enthusiastic lieutenant", would have received a sentence of 21 year' imprisonment following a trial; he gave (in the event) full credit for the guilty plea, and passed a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment on count 1, and a concurrent sentence of seven years' imprisonment on count 2. (2) Sirvan Rathoor, the sentence at trial would above been 20 years' imprisonment, but after giving a little more than 30 per cent credit for the guilty plea, previous good character and mitigation, he passed a sentence of 13 years' imprisonment on count 1, and a concurrent sentence of six and a half years' imprisonment on count 2. (3) Singh-Digpal, who had been found guilty at trial, was regarded as meriting a lesser sentence than Darshan Rathoor and, having regard to his counsel's submissions in mitigation, the judge passed a sentence of 18 years' imprisonment on count 1, and a concurrent sentence of nine years' imprisonment on count 2. (4) Jamie Ragget was considered, in large part, Singh-Digpal's employee and his recruit. Having regard to his troubled background and counsel's submissions in mitigation, the judge made a substantial reduction in sentence to that of Singh-Digpal, to 12 years' imprisonment on count 1, and a concurrent sentence of six years' imprisonment on count 2. (5) Nerver Singh, and having had regard to his counsel’s submissions in mitigation, the judge felt able to reduce his sentence to one of six years' imprisonment on count 1. 92. In their respective grounds of appeal each of the defendants submits that the sentence passed upon them was manifestly excessive. The main line of attack is upon the sentence arrived at for the lead conspirator Darshan Rathoor had there been a trial (24 years' imprisonment) and the impact that that accordingly had on the sentences passed in respect of each of the other defendants. We are very grateful to all counsel for the quality of their written and oral submissions before us. They have been of great assistance. 93. Mr David James, on behalf of Darshan Rathoor, submits that the factual circumstances of the present case were not unique or so extreme so as to fall outside the general range for such offences, as identified in authorities on kidnap offences which have taken a 16 or 18 year starting point. 94. Reference is made to Attorney General's Reference (Nos 102 and 103 of 2014) (R v Perkins) [2014] EWCA Crim 2992, in which it was said at [29], that "The authorities establish that every case is fact-specific. However, generally speaking, cases involving hostage-taking and demands for ransom will attract figures close to the 16-year starting point" (a paragraph that was quoted with approval in R v Greene [2018] EWCA Crim 480). 95. It is submitted that sentences extending beyond 16 years would appear to require elements of particular gravity, such as those involving extreme violence, extensive and professional planning of the offences, false imprisonment for very extensive periods, and that "the additional factors suggestive or requiring an uplift from the upper 16 years of an increased starting point were not necessarily evident in our instant case". 96. First, it is said that fear and terror from the experience – the threats and the violence – are features reflected in all cases. Whilst that is true, this was an extended ordeal in which the victim feared for his life in multiple respects, as identified by the judge and addressed above. 97. Second, it is said that whilst threats were made with a weapon (something that appeared to be a gun), injury was not inflicted with a weapon. That is, we consider with respect, a fine distinction, given that such a weapon is, by its very nature, a lethal weapon and in any event the victim's face was stamped on with a shod foot, which could, as the judge rightly noted, have caused serious injury or death. 98. Third, it is said that the circumstances are unpleasant but fall within the limits commonly required to commit the offence, such as the identification or targeting of the victim, luring or surveillance to a spot at which the kidnapping is committed, the victim is commonly overpowered or beaten and taken to be held at a pre-arranged location (or locations) and ransom demands are made by means that cannot easily be traced. All that is true, but applying the Needham factors that increase seriousness, the present case was a particularly bad example of each and every one of these matters, as identified above. 99. Fourth, it is said that the length of time and degree of planning is not as substantial or sophisticated as cases such as R v Stephens and Others [2010] EWCA Crim 911, which had international elements, various holding locations, and ran into multiple days. As we address further below, every case is fact specific, with its own factual features, but here there was extensive planning including a prior (abortive) kidnap attempt, and the victim was moved to multiple locations, with gratuitous torture over the period of what was an extended ordeal. The sentence is not to be measured be sole reference to the length of the particular ordeal. 100. Fifth, it is said that there was no recent antecedent history of violence in the case of Darshan Rathoor (or the other defendants for that matter, having regard to their antecedents). However, if there had been such recent offending that would have been a further aggravating factor. The violence imposed during the course of the victim's ordeal speaks for itself, and is a specific factor increasing the seriousness particularly where, as here, what occurred can properly be described as torture (as the judge rightly found). 101. Sixth, it is said that in the case of Darshan Rathoor, there is no evidence that the applicant inflicted or specifically directed any of the violence used against the victim. However, Darshan Rathoor was being sentenced as the lead conspirator on both conspiracies and it is hardly a mitigating factor that others inflicted the violence in the execution of the conspiracies of which he was the lynchpin. 102. Seventhly, it is said that the victim's ordeal was ended by the offenders who released him close to the home of family members and before any ransom was paid. True that is, but it is hardly a mitigating factor, and belies the prolonged nature of the detention, the torture, the fact that the victim was abandoned almost naked in his soiled underclothes and left in a bewildered state and unsure of his location. Had he not been released, or indeed if he had been killed, the offending would have been even more serious, as it would if the ransom monies had been successfully extorted, in circumstances where over £50,000 had already been collected by the victim's father. 103. Counsel for the defendants seek to draw precise comparisons with other reported cases with a view to drawing distinctions so as to submit that other cases had different and, it is said, in some cases more serious features. 104. However, this court has repeatedly stressed that every case is fact specific. As was stated in R v Said Ahmad & Ors (supra) at [12]: "Every case will turn on its own facts and there are obvious difficulties in trying to read across the facts of one case to those of another." 105. There is also before us a Respondent's Notice from the Crown opposing the appeals. In addition, we have received further submissions on behalf of Darshan Rathoor and Singh Digpal. We bear well in mind all of the submissions that have been made to us, both in writing and orally. 106. We would make the following points that are of general application to all the offenders: (1) The offences were charged as conspiracies but, as was noted in advance of trial, they could have been charged as the substantive offences. Furthermore, the large number of people, made the offending all the more serious. (2) Kidnap and blackmail offences, by their very nature and seriousness, demand deterrent sentences. The present offending cried out for such sentences. (3) In this regard, the kidnap offence in the present case was a truly horrific example of what is an horrific crime, and was of the utmost seriousness with almost every Needham factor applying, and in an aggravating sense. Those aggravating factors required a very significant increase from any notional starting point. (4) There were then additional aggravating factors over and above those identified in Needham which required a further upward increase. (5) The defendants in all cases (save that of Nerver Singh) were not only being sentenced in respect of the serious offence of conspiracy to kidnap, but the further, and separate, serious offence of conspiracy to blackmail, with very large sums of money being sought, which required a very substantial custodial sentence in its own right. If, as occurred, the sentence passed on count 1 was to reflect the totality of the offending (with the offence in count 2 being treated as a serious aggravating factor) then this, in of itself, required a further substantial increase from the starting point. (6) The judge was best placed to assess the respective roles of the various conspirators in the conspiracies. (7) As with the largest scale drug conspiracies and associated sentences, there will inevitably be a degree of bunching, with small differences in sentence between particular participants. 107. Whilst the total sentence at trial of 24 years' imprisonment to reflect the totality of the offending might, perhaps, be considered severe, it was not manifestly excessive. 108. We note that there are now Sentencing Guidelines for Kidnap and for Blackmail. They were not applicable at the time and are accordingly of no relevance to the sentencing exercise of the judge or to the appeals before us. Equally, future cases will stand to be sentenced having regard to such Sentencing Guidelines. We note in passing, however, that it would have been possible to pass the total sentence that was passed applying such guidelines to the particular facts of this case. Darshan Rathoor 109. There are no features in the case of Darshan Rathoor which would otherwise render a sentence of 24 years' imprisonment (16 years' imprisonment after the full credit given) manifestly excessive. However, in fact, and given the timing of his guilty pleas at the plea and trial preparation hearing (and not at the first appearance in the magistrates' court), Darshan Rathoor was entitled to only 25 per cent credit, and not 30 per cent credit (as the judge indicated) or 33 per cent credit (as he gave). With the correct 25 per cent credit, this would have equated to a sentence at trial of 21 years and 4 months' imprisonment. Other Participants 110. We turn next to the individual sentences that were passed by the judge in relation to the various participants in the conspiracies. All participants were sentenced by reference to the lead sentence passed in respect of Digpal Rathoor, and the main gravamen of the other appeals is by reference to the lead sentence which we have found not to be manifestly excessive. To that extent the sentences passed were not, thereby, manifestly excessive. 111. We would note again at this point that the judge was best placed to assess where each participant fell within the conspiracies and to sentence accordingly. Equally, as in any conspiracy, each participant plays their own (often differing) part, lending their support to the conspiracy as a whole. Other than in terms of hierarchy, fine distinctions based on the particular part played by individuals will rarely have a significant impact on the sentence to be passed. Inderpal Singh 112. Inderpal Singh was the "enthusiastic and highly trusted lieutenant" of Darshan Rathoor. We do not consider that there is any merit in the submission that the judge was wrong to consider that his factual disputes with the Crown's case were not material. Whether or not he was involved in the first attempt to kidnap the victim was of little, if any, significance (albeit there was some evidence that he was). He was clearly identified as one of the victim's captors and must have been directly responsible for, or present during, the physical assaults on him, the threats to his life, and the humiliating and degrading treatment that he suffered. In the final series of communications, and as we have already foreshadowed, there was also a reference to "tell Indie to get a bangle, I want a bangle". This was, at the very lowest, in the presence of Inderpal Singh, and the bangle was taken off the victim by someone. This a particularly aggravating feature; the bangle was of particular significance to the victim for cultural reasons. The sentence passed of 14 years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. Again, the credit for the guilty plea was over generous, and the sentence at trial before 25 per cent credit (which was what was acknowledged in the Defence Sentencing Note) would have been 18 years and eight months' imprisonment. Sirvan Rathoor 113. In relation to Sirvan Rathoor (Darshan Rathoor's son), and contrary to what is said in his grounds of appeal, the judge was sure that he was involved in both the plans to kidnap the victim and to hold him for ransom. The judge was also sure that he provided a high degree of logistical support for these conspiracies, which enabled the victim to be abducted, held hostage for a lengthy period and subjected to physical assault, threats to his life, and severely humiliating and degrading treatment. Whether or not he physically inflicted any harm himself, he was a very much part of the offending. The phone evidence showed him in frequent contact with Inderpal Singh who was undoubtedly one of the victim's captors. There was no accepted basis of plea to support his contention that, despite this, he was unaware of any violence being used. He was also in frequent contact with Singh-Digpal who made the terrifying ransom demands to the victim's family. 114. The sentence that would have been passed at trial (20 years) was not manifestly excessive. The judge made a reduction therefrom to reflect previous good character and other mitigation (although in the context of such serious offending, such mitigation could result in only a limited reduction), as well as an indicated (over generous) reduction of a little over 30 per cent for the guilty plea. It is not clear whether the former was applied before the latter, as it should have been, but the net sentence of 13 years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. Again, if appropriate credit of 25 per cent had been given (as reflected in the Defence Sentencing Note, albeit it advocated for a greater credit), this would have equated to a sentence at trial of 17 years and four months' imprisonment. Singh-Digpal 115. Singh-Digpal renews his application for leave to appeal following refusal by the single judge. The submissions that were made on behalf of Singh-Digpal at sentencing, and which are repeated in his proposed grounds of appeal and further submissions filed after receipt of the Respondent's Notice, rely on him not being involved in the actual detention of Gurpal Singh and the physical abuse, threats to his life, and the humiliation which he suffered. However, he was convicted by the jury because they were sure that he was part of the conspiracy to kidnap the victim and demand money from his family. He was therefore, as the single judge rightly pointed out, part of everything that happened to the victim. 116. The trial judge was particularly well placed to consider his role, and his finding that Singh-Digpal was an enthusiastic and highly trusted lieutenant is unimpeachable. After having previously been in Nottingham (for legitimate reasons), he had returned to Portsmouth, and within a short period of time travelled back from Portsmouth to Nottingham, and he was instrumental in making the ransom demands on the second day, many of which were recorded (and played to the jury). They were, as the judge rightly noted, terrifying and resulted in harm to members of the victim's family, as is clear from the Victim Impact Statements we have already quoted. His role was important at this stage if it was to be a successful blackmail, and the family and other supporters had pledged assistance which reached in the region of £85,000. He also involved another in the conspiracy (Jamie Raggett), and involved a wholly innocent person (the street cleaner Mr Ockenden), who was quite uninvolved yet faced the ordeal of being arrested as a result of the use of his phone, and he found himself left to find his own way back from the police station in Nottingham to Portsmouth. Each of these is itself an aggravating feature. The judge properly took into account the submissions made by way of mitigation, and the sentence passed of 18 years' imprisonment following a trial, was not arguably manifestly excessive. Accordingly his renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. James Edward Raggett 117. In the case of Jamie Raggett (who was 18 at the time of the offending, and 20 at the time of sentence), the judge stated that the sentence he would pass was less than that passed on Singh-Digpal, and that he took account of the fact that he was in large part his employee, his recruit. He stated that he had also taken account of Raggett's troubled background and the submissions made by Mr Harrison on his behalf (which are also repeated before us). The judge concluded that he could reduce the sentence "appreciably from [that imposed upon Singh-Digpal] but it remains significant". He then passed a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment. 118. The real gravamen of Mr Harrison's submissions is that the judge failed to have sufficient regard to the fact that Raggett was belatedly brought into these conspiracies by Singh-Digpal; that his role was significantly different and very limited; and that the judge also failed to have sufficient regard to his age and immaturity. In this regard he also seeks to raise a disparity argument to the sentence of nine years' imprisonment passed in respect of Never Singh (who made his home address and business premises available for the purpose of detaining the complainant, Gurpal Singh). The disparity argument was not addressed by the single judge. 119. We are grateful to Mr Harrison for the quality of his written and oral submissions. 120. We consider that there is merit in Mr Harrison's submissions, having regard to the relatively limited role of Raggett and his age and immaturity, and that the sentence, as passed, was manifestly excessive. An appropriate sentence was one of ten years at trial, before ten per cent credit for the guilty plea, nine years after credit. The sentence should also have been one of detention in a Young Offender Institution. 121. Accordingly, we grant leave to appeal. We quash the sentence as passed and substitute a sentence of nine years' detention in a Young Offender Institution on count 1, and a sentence of six years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution on count 2 (which will run concurrently with the sentence passed on count 1). To that extent Raggett’s appeal against sentence is allowed. Nerver Singh 122. In contrast to his co-defendants, Nerver Singh was sentenced for the offence of conspiracy to kidnap only (his role, as part of the conspiracy, was to provide access to his business address and his home address, premises which were needed to further the detention of the victim). He did, however, attend his home when the victim was still detained, and others were on the phone to someone who was saying, "I want my money". His sentence, following full credit for the guilty plea, was six years' imprisonment, so would have been nine years' imprisonment before plea, significantly less than the sentences imposed on other conspirators. His basis of plea, which was accepted, was, in summary, that he was not involved in the planning of the offence and participated to a limited extent only (in providing the premises) and under pressure. 123. Once again, the judge was best placed to assess Nerver Singh's role and culpability and his personal circumstances (which included his serious health conditions). We do not consider that a sentence of nine years' imprisonment after trial was manifestly excessive. Nerver Singh also benefitted from an over generous full one third (33 per cent) credit for the guilty plea (given that he only pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing). If it had been 25 per cent credit (as it should have been, and as was referred to in the Defence Sentencing Note) that would have equated to eight years' imprisonment at trial. 124. Accordingly, and save as addressed above in relation to James Raggett, all of the appeals against sentence are dismissed. _______________________________ 23