Sangster & Ors, R v

Separate counts for conspiracies involving different controlled drugs and different criminal activity may properly attract consecutive sentences, even where they form part of a connected drug-trafficking enterprise. The sentencing court must apply the totality principle and ensure that the overall sentence reflects the offender’s full criminality; it is not necessarily confined by the maximum that might have applied had the conduct been charged as one conspiracy.

A Newton hearing is unnecessary where the lesser role advanced is wholly implausible or the material facts are not realistically disputed. On an appeal against sentence, applicable guideline ranges, drug quantity and purity, the offender’s role, antecedents, plea timing and personal mitigation may justify substantial distinctions between co-offenders.

Three defendants appealed sentences imposed in the Inner London Crown Court for their roles in a sophisticated network trafficking cocaine, MDMA, amphetamine sulphate and cannabis.

Burnell received a total of 12 years’ imprisonment for conspiracies to supply amphetamine sulphate and cannabis. Sangster received 10 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply cocaine. Jackson received eight years’ imprisonment for possession of MDMA with intent to supply, with concurrent imprisonment for possessing amphetamine sulphate and a consecutive six-month term for breach of a suspended sentence.

The appeals raised the propriety of consecutive sentences for related conspiracies, the need for a Newton hearing, credit for guilty pleas, sentence levels, and alleged disparity between co-offenders.

1. All three appeals were dismissed. The sentences were a justifiably severe response to a sophisticated and large-scale drug-trafficking operation. The sentencing judge had correctly assessed the distinct roles of the offenders.

2. Burnell’s separate conspiracies to supply amphetamine sulphate and cannabis could properly receive consecutive sentences. Although the conspiracies formed part of a connected enterprise, they concerned drugs in different classes and materially different criminal activity. The amphetamine was adulterated in Burnell’s care to increase profit. The judge was not required to treat the counts as a single conspiracy capped at 14 years’ imprisonment, but had to apply totality. He did so by focusing on the overall sentence and criminality.

3. The judge was entitled to find that Burnell’s role was central and pivotal. The evidence showed that he acted not merely as a courier or driver, but also as an adulterator, distributor, money-handler and communicator. A Newton hearing was unnecessary: no hearing was sought, the reduced account of his role was wholly implausible, the contrary evidence was not realistically challengeable, and counsel ultimately conceded the additional roles.

4. The 10 per cent reductions for Burnell’s and Sangster’s guilty pleas entered on the first day of trial were permissible. Negotiations or informal indications before trial did not require greater credit. Nor did the sentences disclose impermissible disparity, because the suggested comparators had materially different plea credit, mitigation, antecedents and roles.

5. For Sangster, the court applied the guideline approach stated in Aranguren (1995) 16 Cr App R (S) 211. The cocaine amounted to about 1.4 kilograms at 100 per cent purity, and Sangster had a serious relevant conviction. The 10-year sentence was severe but not manifestly excessive. Fact-sensitive non-guideline cases, including Smitheringdale [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 58, did not establish otherwise.

6. Jackson knowingly acted as courier for almost 50,000 MDMA tablets and more than nine kilograms of amphetamine sulphate. His recent relevant conviction, the substantial quantities, the reduced plea credit and the breach of a suspended sentence justified the eight-year primary sentence and the consecutive six-month term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeals against sentence.

• Inner London Crown Court — HHJ Chapple sentenced Burnell, Sangster and Jackson for large-scale controlled-drug offences arising from the trafficking network.