Verdonck, R. v

A difference between co-defendants’ sentences does not demonstrate excessive sentencing where their roles, the scope of their participation and the drugs for which they are sentenced materially differ. An appellate court will not grant leave to challenge a sentence that falls within the applicable guideline brackets and is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two conspiracies to import Class A drugs, involving cocaine and ecstasy. He received concurrent sentences of ten years’ imprisonment on 8 September 2006.

His co-defendant received seven years for participation in the cocaine importation only. The sentencing judge proceeded on the basis that the applicant had participated in the importation leading to his arrest and two earlier importations, although the quantities used for sentence were those of the current importation.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application out of time. He contended that the sentence was too long, particularly when compared with that imposed on the co-defendant, and that he had misunderstood the judge’s indication during discussions about a Newton hearing.

1. The court granted an extension of time but refused the renewed application for leave to appeal sentence. The applicant’s asserted misunderstanding of the sentencing process did not assist him. He had accepted participation in two earlier importations in addition to the importation which led to his arrest.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to sentence on the basis of those three importations. The judge did not speculate about the quantities involved in the earlier incidents, but sentenced by reference to the quantities involved in the current importation.
3. The comparison with the co-defendant did not establish disparity capable of rendering the sentence excessive. The co-defendant had been sentenced only for the cocaine count. The applicant had played the different role of bringing drugs into the United Kingdom and was sentenced for both cocaine and ecstasy.
4. The applicant’s previous good character, personal circumstances and guilty pleas had been taken into account. The seriousness of repeated importation of Class A drugs nevertheless justified a severe sentence.
5. The concurrent ten-year sentences were within the brackets indicated by the applicable guideline cases. They were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The renewed application was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Granted an extension of time, but refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Sentencing court — On 8 September 2006, imposed concurrent sentences of ten years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to two conspiracies to import Class A drugs.