Attorney General Reference Nos 117 & 118 of 2005

Organisers of a persistent conspiracy to import substantial quantities of Class A drugs, involving significant planning and the recruitment of couriers exposed to serious personal risks, should ordinarily expect sentences exceeding 20 years’ imprisonment. A sentence may nevertheless be reduced to reflect double jeopardy and relevant personal mitigation. In this case, sentences of 16 years were unduly lenient and were increased to 20 years’ imprisonment.

The Attorney General sought leave to refer as unduly lenient the 16-year sentences imposed on Byfield and Swaby after their convictions for a conspiracy fraudulently to evade the prohibition on importing Class A drugs.

The conspiracy involved six cocaine consignments over about a year. The offenders arranged the couriers’ travel and acted as organisers. The drugs seized totalled 14.45 kilograms at 100 per cent purity and had an estimated street value exceeding £1.5 million.

The offenders relied on their good character, delay caused by an aborted first trial, and personal mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentences were unduly lenient.

1. The court granted the Attorney General leave to refer the sentences. It held that the 16-year terms were unduly lenient and increased each sentence to 20 years’ imprisonment.

2. The offending was a sustained and substantial cocaine-importation conspiracy. It involved more than 14 kilograms of cocaine at full purity, several planned importations, and the recruitment of couriers. The offenders were the organisers and exposed the couriers to the risk of arrest, substantial imprisonment and, in one instance, death from swallowing cocaine.

3. Having considered the combined effect of the sentencing authorities, including Aranguren [1994] 99 Cr App R 347, Garcia [1992] 13 Cr App R (S) 583, Scamaronie [1992] 13 Cr App R (S) 702, De Four [1996] 2 Cr App R (S) 106, Agboola [2005] EWCA Crim 1535 and Williams [2005] EWCA Crim 2950, the court considered that offending of this kind ordinarily attracted a sentence exceeding 20 years.

4. The court allowed for double jeopardy and the available mitigation, including delay and good character. Those matters justified fixing the substituted terms at 20 years rather than imposing a higher sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Granted the Attorney General leave to refer the sentences as unduly lenient and increased each term from 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment.
• Sentencing court — Following conviction on 15 November 2005 after a second trial, imposed 16 years’ imprisonment on each offender. The first trial had been aborted because Swiss witnesses could not attend.