Stewart & Ors, R v

Sentences for a large, sophisticated conspiracy to import cannabis must properly reflect the quantity involved, the offender’s role, the duration and organisation of the operation, and personal aggravating and mitigating features. Sentencing guidance for substantial importations, together with comparable Attorney General’s references, may demonstrate that sentences are unduly lenient. On an Attorney General’s reference, the court may quash such sentences and substitute terms which reflect the seriousness of the offending, while applying totality where a consecutive sentence for a firearm offence is also required.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient the sentences imposed at Leeds Crown Court on four offenders convicted of a conspiracy to import approximately 700kg of cannabis, with an estimated street value of £5 million.

Hill and Walsh arranged the rental of an industrial unit used for deliveries from the Netherlands. Wlodek received deliveries and Stewart assisted with moving drugs. The individual sentences ranged from a suspended sentence for Walsh to four years and six months’ imprisonment for Hill. Stewart also received a consecutive five-year sentence for possessing a prohibited firearm.

The central issue was whether the sentences adequately reflected the scale, sophistication and duration of the conspiracy and each offender’s culpability.

1. The Attorney General’s references were allowed. The court granted leave and held that each sentence for the conspiracy was unduly lenient.

2. The conspiracy involved approximately 700kg of cannabis, delivered through a sophisticated operation over several months. The court took account of the quantity, duration, planning, offending while on bail, relevant previous convictions, and, for Hill, commission during the suspension period of an earlier importation sentence. Guilty pleas, limited but important roles for all save Hill, and Wlodek’s previous good character were mitigating features.

3. The sentencing guidance in R v Ronchetti [1998] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 100, read with the comparative sentences in Attorney-General’s References Nos 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 1997 (Reeves and others) [1998] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 164, demonstrated the undue leniency. The guidance required sentences to increase according to the quantity imported, the offender’s role and all the circumstances.

4. Hill’s sentence of four years and six months was quashed and replaced with eight years’ imprisonment. Wlodek’s sentence of 18 months was replaced with four years and six months, leaving the consecutive six-month sentence for perverting the course of justice in place, for a total of five years.

5. Stewart’s two-year drug sentence was replaced with three years. The consecutive five-year firearm sentence remained, producing a total of eight years after allowing for totality. Walsh’s suspended sentence was replaced with 51 weeks’ immediate imprisonment, with credit for the liberty he had retained on bail and after sentence. Full credit was to be given for qualifying time on remand and, where applicable, curfew.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2011] EWCA Crim 2296, granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, found the sentences unduly lenient, and substituted increased sentences.
• Crown Court sitting at Leeds: On 17 June 2011, sentenced the four offenders for the cannabis-importation conspiracy; Stewart also received a consecutive sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm.