Campbell, R v

A persistent drug importer may receive a sentence substantially above the level normally indicated by the quantity involved where the offender’s record demonstrates a continuing willingness to import drugs despite earlier punishments. The sentence must nevertheless remain proportionate.

Where the conditions in section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 are met, a travel restriction order is mandatory and begins on release from custody. Its duration must be tailored to the offender and to the assessed risk of reoffending, while taking account of relevant personal circumstances.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Croydon of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition or restriction on the importation of cannabis. He received seven years’ imprisonment and a ten-year travel restriction order expressed to run from the date of sentence.

He appealed against sentence. He contended that the custodial term was manifestly excessive and that the travel restriction order was both too long and incorrectly timed. His extensive record included previous drug-importation offences and a previous custodial sentence for a similar offence.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The seven-year custodial sentence was excessive, although only by a limited margin. A sentence of six years was substituted.
2. The quantity of cannabis alone would not ordinarily have justified seven years’ imprisonment. The appellant’s history was, however, highly material. It showed that earlier penalties had not deterred him from drug importation. An offender who demonstrates a willingness to continue importing drugs may properly receive a significantly longer sentence than an offender sentenced for a single importation. The appropriate sentence remained six years.
3. Under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the statutory conditions required a travel restriction order. By section 33(3), it had to begin on the appellant’s release from custody, rather than on the date of sentence. The court adopted the approach in Mee [2004] EWCA Crim 629: the period must be tailored to the offender after assessing the risk presented, including relevant personal circumstances. The appellant posed a real risk of future importation, so a period above the statutory minimum was justified. Ten years was disproportionate. A five-year order, commencing on release, was substituted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2004] EWCA Crim 2333, the court allowed the sentence appeal in part. It reduced the custodial term and substituted a shorter travel restriction order commencing on release.
• Crown Court at Croydon: The appellant was convicted of fraudulent evasion of the prohibition or restriction on importing cannabis. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and made subject to a ten-year travel restriction order.