Attorney General's Reference No. 68 OF 2005

For very substantial quantities of class A drugs, sentencing must reflect the quantity, purity and value of the drugs, their proximity to importation, and the offender’s trusted role in their distribution. A courier role and limited mitigation do not prevent a substantial custodial sentence where the offender controls cocaine and heroin on this scale.

On an Attorney General’s reference, the court may increase an unduly lenient sentence while taking account of the principle of double jeopardy.

The Attorney General referred sentences imposed at Preston Crown Court under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The offender had pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine and diamorphine with intent to supply, and to driving while disqualified. He received four years’ imprisonment on each drugs count and two months’ imprisonment for the driving offence, all concurrent.

He was stopped while carrying over two kilograms of cocaine in importation packaging. A search of his home found almost one kilogram of heroin. The sentencing judge accepted mitigation that he was a courier for the cocaine and held the heroin for another person. The central issue was whether concurrent four-year sentences were unduly lenient.

1. The reference succeeded. The concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment for possession of cocaine and diamorphine with intent to supply were unduly lenient. They were replaced by concurrent sentences of six years and six months’ imprisonment.

2. The drugs offences involved large quantities of two dangerous class A drugs. The cocaine was of high purity and remained in importation packaging, supporting the inference that its distribution was close to the source of importation. Its wholesale value was about £60,000. The heroin found at the offender’s home had a wholesale value of about £20,000.

3. The court accepted, as the sentencing judge had done, that the offender acted as courier for the cocaine and held the heroin for another. That did not reduce the gravity to the level reflected by four years. The money transfer, simultaneous possession of heroin, and the offender’s pivotal and trusted role showed that he was closely connected to a major dealer or source of supply.

4. The guilty plea was the only significant mitigating feature. The court considered sentencing decisions, including Mohammed Attiq [2005] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 11, as helpful fact-specific examples of the applicable sentencing brackets. It considered that, following a plea, a sentence of about seven and a half to eight years could have been appropriate, without making a definitive ruling on that range.

5. Before increasing the sentences, the court took account of the principle described as double jeopardy. The two-month concurrent sentence for driving while disqualified was not altered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the concurrent four-year drugs sentences unduly lenient and substituted concurrent sentences of six years and six months’ imprisonment.
• Preston Crown Court: Sentenced the offender to four years’ imprisonment on each of the two drugs counts and two months’ imprisonment for driving while disqualified, all concurrent.