Davies & Ors, Re Reference by the Attorney General

In large-scale drug-importation cases, sentencing guidelines provide important reference points. A broad tariff approach is appropriate unless exceptional mitigation justifies departure. A sentencing judge retains flexibility to reflect the offender’s role and the overall circumstances, but must explain any substantial departure from the guideline range.

On an Attorney General’s reference under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is unduly lenient when it falls outside the appropriate range, rather than merely being lenient. When substituting a sentence, the court must allow for the double-jeopardy element inherent in the reference procedure.

Four offenders were convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of conspiracies to supply substantial quantities of cocaine, MDMA and amphetamine imported in one consignment with a street value of about £5 million. They had played differing but important roles in a planned and sophisticated criminal enterprise.

The Attorney General referred the sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that the concurrent sentences for the principal drug counts were unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the judge had departed substantially and without sufficient reason from sentencing guidance for major drug importation.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The sentences imposed for the principal drug-importation counts were unduly lenient and were quashed.

2. The quantities of drugs, their intended sale in the United Kingdom, and the sophistication and planning of the conspiracy were powerful aggravating features. The offenders had subordinate roles to the absent organiser, but each performed an important role in the enterprise.

3. The court followed the guideline approach in Aramah [1982] 4 Cr App R (S) 407 and Aranguren [1994] 16 Cr App R (S) 211. In major drug-importation cases, a broad tariff is appropriate in the absence of exceptional mitigation. The guidelines should generally be followed as reference points. A judge who departs from them substantially should state the reasons in the sentencing remarks.

4. A trial judge who has heard a lengthy case retains flexibility to reflect individual culpability and the overall feel of the case. That flexibility did not justify the substantial reductions made here. No feature specific to an offender, or to the case, explained the departure from the expected ranges. The original sentences therefore went beyond mere leniency.

5. Allowing for double jeopardy, Hassan received 17 years’ imprisonment concurrently on counts 1 and 2, with the consecutive firearms sentences producing a total of 19 years. Rowan received 15 years concurrently on those counts. Davies and Abbey each received 13 years concurrently on those counts. The eight-year concurrent sentences on count 3 were unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court quashed and increased sentences imposed by Liverpool Crown Court.
• Liverpool Crown Court: His Honour Judge Clarke QC convicted and sentenced the four offenders for conspiracies to supply imported controlled drugs.