Lees & Anor, R v

In sentencing for large-scale controlled-drug conspiracies, the pure weight of the drugs is the critical comparator. Street value is not decisive because it is market-dependent. It may nevertheless be considered as evidence of the substantial profits which the offending could generate.

Comparable sentencing decisions assist in assessing whether a sentence is manifestly excessive. The offender’s role in the organisation, the scale and sophistication of the conspiracy, relevant previous convictions, and related criminality are material. A sentence within the range indicated by comparable authorities will not be disturbed merely because it is severe.

Police found 470,000 ecstasy tablets, ecstasy paste and amphetamine paste concealed at commercial premises. Following information from the lessee, William Lees and Peter Gianassi were charged with conspiracies to supply the drugs. At Liverpool Crown Court, before His Honour Judge Roberts and a jury, both were convicted after trial.

Lees, found to be near the top of the operation and recently released from a substantial sentence for earlier drug importation, received 25 years’ imprisonment. Gianassi, who had an important but lesser role, received 17 years. They appealed against sentence, contending principally that the judge had been unduly influenced by the drugs’ street value and that the sentences were excessive by comparison with other cases.

1. The appeals were dismissed. Neither the 25-year sentence imposed on Lees nor the 17-year sentence imposed on Gianassi was manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge had identified the drugs’ pure weight, rather than their variable market value, as the critical sentencing comparator. His references to street value did not show that he had treated it as decisive. Street value was relevant, though not critical, to demonstrate the massive profits available from the supply of the drugs.

3. The court treated R v Van Tattenhove and Doubtfire [1996] 2 Cr App R(S) 91 and the other comparators as supporting the sentences. For quantities broadly comparable to the ecstasy involved, the appropriate range depended on the offender’s role and could extend from 20 to 30 years. Lees had a higher role than the appellants in Van Tattenhove and Doubtfire, being close to the top of the organisation, and his previous drug-importation conviction aggravated his offending.

4. Gianassi had played a significant but subordinate role as Lees’s trusted assistant. The judge had properly allowed for that lesser role. The additional amphetamine conspiracy, its sophistication, organisation and stakes could also aggravate the sentencing for the ecstasy conspiracy.

5. The matters concerning release arrangements under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not affect the conclusion. The court rejected any disparity complaint based on the co-defendant’s reduced sentence, which reflected an early guilty plea and assistance to the prosecution.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeals against sentence dismissed in [2007] EWCA Crim 1152.

• Crown Court at Liverpool: Lees and Gianassi were convicted after trial of conspiracies to supply ecstasy and amphetamine. They received total concurrent sentences of 25 years and 17 years respectively.