British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> APPEAL BY JOSEPH FRANCIS MCHALE AND KEVIN CHARLES SCHRUYERS AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2017] ScotHC HCJAC_35 (31 May 2017))
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2017/[2017]_HCJAC_35.html
Cite as: [2017] ScotHC HCJAC_35, 2017 SCL 866, [2017] HCJAC 35, 2017 GWD 27-438, 2017 SCCR 427, 2018 JC 11
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page 1 ⇓
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
Lord Justice General
Lord Drummond Young
Lord Malcolm
[2017] HCJAC 35
HCA/2017/440/XC and HCA/2017/442/XC
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE GENERAL
in
APPEALS
by
JOSEPH FRANCIS McHALE and KEVIN CHARLES SCHRUYERS
Appellants
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent
Appellant (McHale): Kerrigan QC, Findlater; Beaumont & Co
Appellant (Schruyers): Allan QC, Armstrong; Faculty Services
Respondent: Stewart QC AD; the Crown Agent
31 May 2017
General
[1] On 25 April 2016, at the High Court, Glasgow, the appellants, along with Robin
Vaughan, went to trial on a series of charges generally involving successful and
unsuccessful attempts to force open Automated Teller Machines in the Aberdeenshire area
Page 2 ⇓
2
between August and November 2013. There was also a charge (22) of theft of golf
equipment, including Galvin Green golf clothing, from the Paul Lawrie Golf Centre on
South Deeside Road on 26 October 2013. Another co-accused, Peter O’Brien, failed to
appear.
[2] During the course of the trial, Mr Vaughan pled guilty to charges 2, 9 and 10 (infra).
On 19 May, the appellants were convicted of these charges and charges 15, 22, 24, 25 and 27.
The charges involved ATM machines on the following dates at the specified locations:
Charge
2
9
10
15
24
25
27
Date (all 2013)
Location
26 August
Co-op, Mintlaw
18 September RBS, New Deer
19 September Co-op, Bieldside
25 October
Clydesdale Bank, Ellon
28 October
Clydesdale Bank, Stonehaven
28 October
Bank of Scotland, Inverurie
10 November
Lloyds TSB, Oldmeldrum Road
(Bucksburn)
[3] On 5 August 2016, Mr McHale was sentenced to 12½ years imprisonment (reduced
from 13 years to take into account an interrupted period in custody); Mr Schruyers was
sentenced to 13 years; and Mr Vaughan to 11 years.
Evidence
[4] The crimes involving the ATMs were described by the trial judge as a “highly
distinct – if not unique – course of conduct”. Eye witnesses spoke to seeing up to four dark
clothed persons acting in concert. They involved targeting small Aberdeenshire towns in
Page 3 ⇓
3
the hours of darkness, placing tape over any cameras at the loci, using crow bars to break
into the premises and introducing gas and wiring into the ATMs with a view to blowing
them up and stealing the money inside. The modus operandi required a degree of expertise to
improvise a hot wire ignition system, the wires being heated by a battery and attached to
matches. Some £21,000 was obtained from the events in charge 9 and £112,000 from charge
10. There was fresh blood found on the ATM in charge 10 which did not belong to any of
the accused.
[5] In charge 9, a black Audi was used as the getaway car. In charge 10, a silver Audi
was seen. In charges 15 and 24, a white Audi, which had been stolen from outside a DW
Sports Club in Aberdeen on 15 October, was used. In charge 25 a white Audi, presumably
the same one, was also used. The white Audi was observed at the Norvite farm shop, Old
Meldrum, on 25 October. That was the same day as the crime in charge 25. The appellants,
Mr O’Brien, and an unidentified male left the Audi and entered the shop. A shop assistant
became suspicious and, when challenged, Mr McHale handed over a pair of black gloves
which had been in his pocket. Subsequently Mr O’Brien was found to have a pair of black
gloves which had been stolen from the shop. When recovered from woods near Methlick on
29 October, the Audi had materials in it for use in blowing up ATMs, including gas
cylinders, a battery with leads attached to matches, a sledge hammer and a pair of gloves.
Mr Schruyers’ DNA was matched to DNA recovered from the Audi’s steering wheel.
Nearby, “Galvin Green” golf clothing from the Paul Lawrie Golf Centre break-in on
26 October (charge 22) was recovered.
[6] Another car, which had been stolen from the same DW Sports Club on 3 September,
was seen in woods near Ellon on the following day. There was no link established between
this car and any of the charges. A stolen silver Audi was being driven by Mr O’Brien when
Page 4 ⇓
4
he was detained by the police in Liverpool on 31 October. This too contained Galvin Green
golf clothing and equipment suitable for use in the crimes (eg power tools and a crowbar).
[7] Very soon after the golf centre break-in, which occurred at about 1.00am, Messrs
McHale, O’Brien and Schruyers were observed at Mr O’Brien’s flat in Torry. There was
much to-ing and fro-ing, with a large bag and clothing being transported. Subsequently
Mr McHale and Mr O’Brien left the flat wearing golf clothing of the type stolen from the golf
centre. All of this was consistent with CCTV footage recorded at the golf centre which
showed three men leaving a silver saloon car and breaking into the premises with a large
black bag or sack. Two of the men were identified as similar to Mr Schruyers and
Mr O’Brien. A laptop computer was recovered from the flat, upon which searches had been
made, on 13 and 14 October, for Audi cars and, on 26 October, on an “ATM locator”. On the
latter date, a Google map was downloaded which showed “Norvite Animal Nutrition”,
along with a location mark for the farm and nearby banks.
[8] According to Francis Clark, who had a chalet at Cruden Bay, Mr Vaughan had asked
to come and stay at the chalet along with a few friends. Four had come in late August or
September and had stayed for a week or 10 days. They went away and came back again. It
was not always the same group. Mr Vaughan and a person called Terry were always part of
the group. Mr Clark mentioned a small man with white skin, and short or no hair, with a
weird last name, “shrewd or something”. They had three or four Audis; first a black, then a
white, then, possibly another black one. They had told him that they were going to blow up
ATMs. On 19 September they had mentioned obtaining £100,000 from Bieldside (charge 10).
They had equipment, such as gas cylinders and various car number plates, stored in a
garage. On one occasion Mr Clark found the group wiping red dye from the stolen money.
Page 5 ⇓
5
In October he saw a couple of thousand pounds on the table. One of them explained how
they went about blowing up the ATMs.
[9] On 27 October Mr Vaughan had phoned Mr Clark from a car to say that he was on
his way back up to “do” more machines. There were three or four Liverpool voices in the
background. With regard to the raid on 10 November (charge 27) DNA matching that of
Mr McHale was found on tape surrounding a wire which was part of an explosive device
abandoned at the bank.
[10] The evidence linking the individual appellants and the co-accused to the particular
crimes was circumstantial; some of the connectors being strong and others weak. In relation
to Mr McHale:
(1) he was present at the DW Sports Club when the white Audi, used in charges
15, 24 and 25, was stolen on 15 October; the car later being found to contain
equipment which could have been used in the raids;
(2) he was in the white Audi, with Messrs O’Brien and Schruyers, when it was at
the Norvite farm shop on 25 October when he tried to steal a pair of gloves;
(3) he was in the company of Messrs O’Brien and Schruyers going into
Mr O’Brien’s flat in Torry at about 1.00am, shortly after the golf centre break-in on
26 October. On the following morning he was seen, with Mr O’Brien, leaving the flat
wearing Galvin Green “Insular” clothing of the type stolen (charge 22), and of the
type later recovered from the flat and from the woods where the white Audi was
discovered;
(4) his DNA was found on tape surrounding wires recovered from material left
at Lloyds TSB, Old Meldrum Road (charge 27); and
(5) Mr McHale is from Liverpool.
Page 6 ⇓
6
[11] In relation to Mr Schruyers, his DNA was found on the steering wheel of the
recovered white Audi, thus linking him to charges 15, 24 and 25. He too was at the flat in
Torry. Francis Clark said that one of the men who came to stay at his chalet had a weird
name, “shrewd or something”. He had really short, or no, hair, white skin and was quite
small. The description matched that of Mr Schruyers in court and the description given to
the jury by a detective sergeant when viewing CCTV footage. Mr Schruyers is also from
Liverpool.
[12] Mr O’Brien’s DNA was found on a pair of black gloves found in the recovered white
Audi, thus linking him with charges 15, 24 and 25. He was also at the Norvite farm shop.
He was detained in Liverpool in a silver Audi wearing the gloves which he had stolen from
the Norvite farm shop. The car contained Galvin Green golf clothing, linking him to the
Galvin Golf Centre break-in (charge 22).
[13] Mr Vaughan had been identified as an ever present member of the group in the
chalet. It would seem that he was the organiser of that accommodation. His DNA was
found on tape covering the camera in charge 2. He was found in possession of £1,000 in
Scottish bank notes on 3 October near his home in Liverpool. During the period
27 September to 13 October, there had been attempts to launder RBS notes, stained with red
dye, in Liverpool betting shops. Mr Vaughan told Mr Clark on 27 October that he was on
his way back up to raid more ATMs in the area. This was the day before the events libelled
in charges 24 and 25.
Grounds of Appeal
1
Unfair Trial
[14] Mr Vaughan pled guilty during the trial. At that point, the advocate depute, in
Page 7 ⇓
7
moving for sentence before the jury, tendered a schedule of his previous convictions. The
nature and extent of his record was not disclosed. On the following day, Mr McHale moved
the trial judge to desert the diet on the basis of unfairness “by analogy” with section 101 of
the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. That motion was refused because section 101(1)
did not apply and that, if any prejudice had been caused, it was not sufficiently serious to
peril the continuing trial. It could be cured by a direction even in the case of the revealing of
direction mentioning previous convictions was given in the judge’s charge 10 days later.
She thought that any such direction would draw attention to the matter. She did, however,
state that the jury should not regard Mr Vaughan’s plea “and any information in respect of
that plea” as evidence in the case. The jury required to “put it aside and have no regard to
it”.
[15] The submission on appeal was that revealing Mr Vaughan’s record was grossly
prejudicial in that it showed that the appellant had associated with a known criminal. This
rendered the trial unfair, not in common law terms, but under Article 6 of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The judge’s directions were insufficient to cure the error.
2
Admission of Hearsay
[16] Objection was taken to the testimony of Mr Clark about the phone call from
Mr Vaughan, with Liverpool voices in the background, on 27 October to the effect that he
was on his way up to “do” some machines. The trial judge repelled this on the basis that the
case involved concert (Dickson: Evidence para 363; Docherty v HM Advocate 1980 SLT (notes)
33). On reflection she considered that this may have been an error (Beacom v HM Advocate
Page 8 ⇓
8
2002 SLT 346; McLay v HM Advocate 1994 JC 159 at 165 and 179). However, the judge reports
that this evidence was not significant and would not have caused any material prejudice.
3
Sufficiency
[17] Both appellants maintained that the trial judge ought to have sustained their no case
to answer submissions. Although it is said that the judge had relied upon Howden v HM
Advocate 1994 SCCR 19, she reports that she did not apply it. She took from it only the
approach to take in the identification of peculiar features which would entitle a jury to
conclude that the crimes were committed by the same person or, she reasoned, group. If the
jury concluded that the same group had been involved, and there was a common criminal
purpose, the question then was whether there was evidence to prove that the particular
accused had been one of the group and party to that common criminal purpose. Emphasis
was placed on the discovery of blood from an unknown person on one of the ATMs.
[18] It was submitted on behalf of Mr McHale that, as distinct from Howden, there was no
“sufficient identification” of the appellant in any of the ATM charges. The finding of his
DNA on the tape, as distinct from the wires, was insufficient. The ratio in Howden could
only apply where there was some form of identification, albeit a tentative one, in relation to
each charge. The reasoning in Howden could not apply where there was evidence that the
group varied. On behalf of Mr Schruyers it was said that it was not enough to show that the
appellant was in the company of others who may have been involved in criminal activity. It
was not enough to show participation, as part of the group on one occasion, when there was
no identification of the appellant being a member of the group on another occasion.
Page 9 ⇓
9
4
Misdirections
(i) The Same Group
[19] Following from the submissions on sufficiency, it was said that the trial judge had
misdirected the jury. The evidence did not show that the ATM crimes were committed by
the same group of four men.
[20] The judge had told the jury that the Crown case was that all of the offences, other
than charge 27, were committed by the same group of four men; the appellants and Messrs
O’Brien and Vaughan. On charge 27 it was the appellants and Mr Vaughan. The Crown
relied on the jury drawing two conclusions from the circumstantial evidence. The first was
that it was the same group. The judge directed the jury that if they were not so satisfied,
they could not convict. She made it clear that they had to be satisfied that the same four
men had acted together to commit these crimes. It was not enough that there were
similarities. The unusual features had to point to it being the same group. Secondly, the
jury had to be satisfied that each accused was part of that group and an active participant in
the common plan to commit the particular crime charged. If they were not, they required to
acquit.
(ii) Search for Norvite
[21] It was submitted that the trial judge erroneously directed the jury that the Norvite
farm shop had been searched for on the laptop. The evidence was that any such search had
been on the day after the Norvite visit. The judge accepts that there was no specific search
for the shop but that the map produced, from whatever search there was, showed the
location of Norvite farm. The anomaly in date was not explored in evidence.
Page 10 ⇓
10
Decision
(1) Unfair Trial
[22] In human rights terms, it is not a breach of Article 6 of the Convention to reveal an
accused’s previous convictions during his trial (Andrew v HM Advocate 2000 SLT 402, LJC
(Cullen), delivering the Opinion of the Court, at 406). As was recognised by the European
Commission in X v Austria (App No 2742/66), evidence of an accused’s previous convictions
is regularly given in a number of Convention countries without it being perceived as a
breach of Article 6 (see Boyd v HM Advocate 2001 JC 53, LJG (Rodger) at para [9]). In these
circumstances, disclosure of a co-accused’s convictions can hardly be regarded as a breach of
the rights of another accused. It is not a fact which inevitably leads an unfair trial by
disabling the jury from reaching an impartial verdict.
[23] Section 101 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that an accused’s
previous convictions shall not be laid before the jury, or referred to in their presence, in
advance of their verdict. That section was not breached. Furthermore, the trial judge
directed the jury that the co-accused’s plea of guilty, and any information in respect of it,
was not evidence in the case. The jury were directed to put it aside and have no regard to it.
These directions remove any question of the tendering of the co-accused’s record
prejudicing the appellant. No specification of the co-accused’s record was given. No
miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated on this ground. That having been said, leaving
the tendering of a schedule of a co-accused’s previous convictions until after a jury’s verdict
is the better practice.
(2) Hearsay
[24] The evidence objected to related to the telephone call with Mr Vaughan on
Page 11 ⇓
11
27 October. This was the day before the Clydesdale and RBS charges (24 and 25). It is the
day after Mr Schruyers, Mr O’Brien and Mr McHale were in the flat in Torry. In the call,
Mr Vaughan said that he was on the way up to Aberdeenshire to “do” more of the
machines. There were Liverpudlian voices in the background. That is hardly surprising as
that was where Mr Vaughan lived and was apparently coming from. The call was made
from a car.
[25] Despite the acceptance of a plea of not guilty from Mr Vaughan to the charges
occurring in October and November, the Crown were still maintaining that he was involved
in these charges; hence the terms of the judge’s charge. No point was made in the appeal
about this apparent inconsistency in the Crown’s approach. In that situation, in which the
Crown were still seeking to prove the guilt of the appellants in concert with Mr Vaughan,
the terms of the call were admissible as part of the res gestae; ie to prove that Mr Vaughan
and other Liverpudlians were coming up to commit the crimes (HM Advocate v Docherty
1980 SLT (notes) 33, Lord Stewart at 34, citing Walker & Walker: Evidence (1st ed) p 35 (para
37; see 4th ed para 9.9) and Dickson: Evidence (Grierson ed) 363. Beacom v HM Advocate 2002
SLT 349 involved the leading of a post crime interview of an accused against whom the
Crown had decided to withdraw the libel. That conduct was regarded as unconscionable,
but it is of no relevance here. This call was not a statement made after the completion of a
crime, but one made beforehand which demonstrated preparation for crimes proved to have
been committed the next day involving Mr Vaughan and Liverpudlian accomplices.
(3) Sufficiency and Misdirections
[26] If an accused person is proved to have committed a particular offence and it is
demonstrated that another identical offence has been committed, that may be sufficient to
Page 12 ⇓
12
prove that the accused perpetrated both offences (Gillan v HM Advocate 2002 SCCR 502, LJC
(Gill) delivering the Opinion of the Court, at para [19]; cited in Wilson v HM Advocate 2016
SCCR 425, LJG (Carloway), delivering the Opinion of the Court, at para [19]). Whether it is
sufficient will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances; notably the extent of the
identical features and their proximity in time and place. There may also be situations in
which it can be inferred that the same gang or group was involved in two crimes. In that
situation, if an accused is proved to have been involved in one of the crimes, the identical
features of the second crime and its proximity in time and place to the first, may provide
sufficient evidence to draw the same type of conclusion. Identical crimes committed on the
same night and at a nearby loci may be an example where the same numbers are involved.
[27] However, in a situation where there are near identical crimes committed in similar
locations over a period of weeks, it may not be legitimate to conclude that they were
committed by the same persons; albeit that they were perpetrated by a gang under the same
leadership. In this case, assuming, as the Crown maintained, that Mr Vaughan was the
director of operations, the question must be whether there was sufficient evidence for the
jury to conclude that his cohorts were the same, when carrying out: first, the raid on
26 August; secondly, the successful crimes on 18 and 19 September; thirdly, the unsuccessful
attempts and the golf centre break-in over a month later from 25 to 28 October; and fourthly,
the final attempt (which did not involve Mr O’Brien) on 10 November. Although it may be
legitimate to draw an inference, that those involved in a raid on one day were the same as
those involved in a raid on the next day or two, it is far more difficult to infer involvement in
events several weeks apart, without some evidence linking the accused to each block of
crimes.
Page 13 ⇓
13
[28] In what was a circumstantial case based upon several different strands of evidence,
the key question is whether the jury could reasonably find the ATM charges, or some of
them, proven in respect of either or both of the appellants. It was not an “all or nothing”
case, although the trial judge appeared to regard it as such. The proper approach is to look
at the totality of the evidence pointing to the involvement of a particular accused. If that
evidence is accepted, the next task is to assess whether, when taken along with the rest of the
evidence, it proves participation in any of the charges, and if so, which. Proof that the same
group of four persons committed all the ATM crimes was not an essential element in this
case. The outstanding common feature was the particular modus operandi used in a series of
planned and swiftly executed raids on, in the main, rural ATMs at night, relatively closely
aligned in time and place. In each case there was an explosion, or an attempt to cause an
explosion, by a method which at that time was otherwise unknown in Scotland. Other
common features were the stolen Audi vehicles, the use of gloves and dark clothing, and a
connection with Liverpool. The fact that the crimes were committed was not in issue. The
only question was whether the Crown had proved the participation of each of the
appellants. In these circumstances any involvement in planning and preparation could be
significant, especially when added to the incriminating DNA evidence. The key contention
for the defence was that, particularly in the absence of direct identification of an appellant as
a participant in a raid, the evidence relied on by the Crown was not sufficient. A similar
submission was presented to this court in support of the argument that the no case to
answer submissions ought to have been upheld. It is therefore necessary to examine the
relevant evidence in respect of each appellant.
[29] Mr McHale was linked to charge 27 by virtue of his DNA being found on tape
surrounding the wires used in the interrupted attempt in Bucksburn on 10 November. The
Page 14 ⇓
14
submission to the contrary is rejected. The finding of his DNA on any component of the
material to be used in causing the explosion forms an obvious link between Mr McHale and
the crime. Sufficient proof of that link was, of itself, enough to prove his involvement on
that charge. He was linked to the stolen white Audi and was in it at the Norvite farm shop
with Messrs O’Brien and Schruyers. He was wearing Galvin Green clothing shortly after the
break-in at the golf centre; more clothing being found near the recovered white Audi in due
course. He was thus linked to charges 15, 22, 24 and 25. Again, that circumstantial evidence
was sufficient to prove guilt on these charges. When taken with the totality of the evidence,
the jury would have been entitled to hold, from his being at the sports club when the white
Audi was stolen and his presence in it subsequently, that Mr McHale was involved in all of
the ATM charges in the short time span from 25 to 28 October. In order to bring home
charges 2, 9 and 10, however, there would have to be something linking him to them,
occurring, as they did, a month earlier. The very similar nature of the crimes was not
sufficient for the jury to draw the inference that the same four persons, and in particular
Mr McHale, were involved in the earlier incidents.
[30] Mr Schruyers is linked to the white Audi through his fingerprint on the steering
wheel and his identification at the Norvite farm shop, and thus to charges 15, 24 and 25. He
is linked to the golf centre break-in through his activities at the Torry flat. There appears to
be nothing specific to link him to the Bucksburn charge the following month. He is
identified as part of the chalet group through his distinctive name and Mr Clark’s
description, to which the jury were entitled to have regard from their own observations of
Mr Schruyers in court. This linked him to the ATM raid gang as a generality. However, it is
not clear from the trial judge’s report when this appellant joined the chalet group and, in
particular, whether he was there in the initial group of four or not. In these circumstances,
Page 15 ⇓
15
as with Mr McHale, there was insufficient evidence to link him to the earlier charges. The
Notes of Appeal also challenged the convictions on charge 22 (the theft from the golf centre),
but it is clear that there was sufficient evidence against both appellants in that regard.
[31] As already observed, if there had been sufficient evidence to satisfy the jury that all
the ATM incidents involved the same members of the same gang, they would have been
entitled to hold that each appellant had been involved in them all. That is how the trial
judge directed the jury. There was insufficient evidence to link the appellants to the earlier
charges. However, this does not render the judge’s directions challengeable. Indeed, she
made an erroneous direction in favour of the appellants in stating that the jury could not
convict either appellant of any of the ATM charges unless they were satisfied that they had
been involved in all of them. If, and in so far as, any of the directions can be regarded as
productive of a miscarriage of justice, any difficulty extends only to those convictions which
are to be quashed. It remained open to the jury to convict only of certain of the ATM
charges, such as 15, 24 and 25, if they had not been satisfied of the appellants’ involvement
in the earlier offences.
[32] The alleged misdirection in relation to the search for the Norvite farm shop is of no
materiality and, in any event, the trial judge’s directions were broadly accurate, so far as
they went. The fact that the search date was after the Norvite visit does not mean that the
search results were not relevant.
[33] It follows that the appeals will be allowed to the extent of quashing the convictions of
both appellants on charges 2, 9 and 10 and Mr Schruyers’ conviction on charge 27. At the
advising the court will hear any submissions regarding the effect of this on the appellants’
cumulative sentences.
Page 16 ⇓
16
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
Lord Justice General
Lord Drummond Young
Lord Malcolm
[2017] HCJAC 35
HCA/2017/440/XC and HCA/2017/442/XC
SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE GENERAL
in
APPEALS
by
JOSEPH FRANCIS McHALE and KEVIN CHARLES SCHRUYERS
Appellants
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent
Appellant (McHale): Duguid QC; Beaumont & Co
Appellant (Schruyers): Allan QC; Faculty Services
Respondent: Niven-Smith AD; the Crown Agent
31 May 2017
General
[1] The circumstances of these appeals are set out in the Opinion of the Court of today’s
date ([2017] HCJAC 35). The court has also been provided with a sentencing statement,
which was issued by the trial judge, on 5 August 2016.
Page 17 ⇓
17
[2] In relation to the co-accused, namely Mr Vaughan, on 22 November 2016 his
sentence of 11 years was reduced to 10 years (HCA/2016/460/XC). The reason for that
reduction was because the trial judge had erroneously thought that Mr Vaughan had been
on licence at the material time.
[3] Although both appellants now stand convicted only of attempts in relation to the
ATM charges, which were not the most serious on the indictment, and although it was
accepted by the trial judge that Mr Vaughan was effectively the ringleader in respect of the
offences, at least of those to which he pled guilty, these offences are still of considerable
gravity. Both appellants, and Mr Vaughan, were described by the trial judge as career
criminals with substantial previous convictions, including periods in custody. In relation to
Mr McHale, that includes a conviction at the High Court in 2006 for robbery and, in the case
of Mr Schruyers, a 6 year prison term imposed at Liverpool Crown Court for robbery in
2010. Both of the appellants were on licence at the material time.
[4] In all these circumstances, taking into account the reduced number of charges of
which the appellants have been convicted following upon this appeal, the court will reduce
the sentences in respect of Mr McHale to 8½ years imprisonment and Mr Schruyers to
8 years imprisonment.