Attorney General Reference No 11 of 2011

For a courier convicted of possessing a large quantity of very high-purity class A drugs with intent to supply, the sentencing starting point must reflect the equivalent pure quantity, the trust reposed in the courier, and relevant guideline authority. A materially different authority involving a far smaller equivalent quantity cannot justify a substantial reduction in that starting point.

A prompt guilty plea, previous good character, limited role, personal mitigation and remorse require substantial credit. They did not justify a sentence of three years for possession of 990 grams of cocaine at 92% purity. A starting point of seven and a half to eight years was amply merited before mitigation.

The Solicitor General applied under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient the three-year sentence imposed at Kingston Crown Court.

The offender had pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity to possessing a class A drug with intent to supply. She had carried a package containing 990 grams of cocaine hydrochloride at 92% purity for about one hour, as a courier rather than its owner. The Recorder adopted a starting point of four and a half to five years, drawing assistance from R v Allan [2010] EWCA Crim 726, and reduced the term for plea and mitigation.

The central issue was whether that starting point, and consequently the three-year sentence, was unduly lenient.

1. The court granted leave, held that the sentence was unduly lenient, quashed the three-year term and substituted imprisonment for four years and six months.

2. The Recorder had selected a starting point far below that justified by the relevant authorities. The quantity and 92% purity of the cocaine meant that the offender had possession of the equivalent of about 910 grams of pure cocaine. The substantial quantity, high purity and trust necessarily placed in a courier were aggravating features.

3. R v Aranguren and Others (1994) 99 Cr App R 347, together with the authorities on possession with intent to supply, provided the proper sentencing background. The court also treated Attorney General's Reference No 81 of 2003 (R v Mohammed Attiq) [2005] 1 Cr App R(S) 3 as a material comparison: a courier possessing almost one kilogram of pure heroin had had a five-year sentence increased to eight years.

4. The Recorder had erred by allowing R v Allan [2010] EWCA Crim 726 substantially to reduce the starting point. In that case the cocaine was only 4% pure, equivalent to 40 grams at 100% purity, and the circumstances were materially different.

5. A starting point of seven and a half to eight years was amply merited. The court gave effect to the prompt guilty plea, the offender's limited period of possession, her lack of knowledge of the drug's exceptional purity, previous good character, personal circumstances and remorse. Those matters reduced the sentence, but the minimum appropriate term was four years and six months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted four years and six months' imprisonment.

• Kingston Crown Court: On 28 January 2011, imposed three years' imprisonment following a guilty plea.