Shaw & Ors v R.

In sentencing a conspiracy to import Class A drugs, the court may treat the quantities discussed as the conspiracy’s real ambitions where they are supported by substantial expenditure and sophisticated preparations. A conspiracy remains highly culpable although no drugs were imported; that fact may reduce the starting point compared with a completed importation.

An excessive delay in sentencing defendants who have pleaded guilty may require a modest reduction to reflect the anxiety of uncertainty under Article 6(1), even where remand time counts towards sentence. Under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, a travel restriction order serves to reduce post-release offending risk and is not confined to offences with a foreign element.

Five appellants challenged sentences imposed in the Crown Court at Manchester after guilty pleas to offences connected with cocaine importation or supply.

Shaw, Srao and Samplay admitted a large-scale but uncompleted conspiracy to import cocaine. Khan and Wright were sentenced for their involvement in the supply of one kilogram of cocaine. The appeals raised the proper sentencing approach to an advanced but unsuccessful importation conspiracy, the effect of a two-year delay before sentencing the principal offenders, and the validity and duration of travel restriction orders.

Sentence appeals

1. The court allowed the appeals of Shaw, Srao and Samplay, but dismissed those of Khan and Wright.

2. The judge had been entitled to regard the planned importation as a grave and advanced conspiracy. The quantities discussed were supported by extensive preparation, substantial expenditure and a sophisticated proposed method of concealment. The conspiracy had not been voluntarily abandoned. Although no cocaine entered the United Kingdom pursuant to count 1, that fact did not reduce the offenders’ exceptionally high culpability. It could, however, justify a lower starting point than in a completed large-scale importation.

3. The applicable starting point remained the importation guidance in R v Aramah (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 407 and the subsequent authorities. The court declined to interfere with the judge’s broad assessment of the overall gravity of the conspiracy, subject to the individual adjustments made.

4. The two-year delay before sentence gave rise to a valid complaint under Article 6(1). The judge had given insufficient weight to the anxiety caused by awaiting an inevitable lengthy sentence. A six-month reduction was required for each of the three principal offenders. The bail restrictions imposed on Khan and Wright did not warrant any reduction.

5. Under sections 33 and 34 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the court had to consider a travel restriction order for each eligible drug-trafficking offender. Its purpose is to prevent or reduce post-release offending. A foreign element is not a prerequisite. The relevant period depends on the risk of reoffending, assessed in light of such matters as age, antecedents, family contacts and employment.

6. Shaw’s sentence on count 1 was reduced to 15 years. Srao’s was reduced to 14 years and six months, and his travel restriction order to four years. Samplay’s sentence was reduced to 12 years and his order to four years. Khan’s and Wright’s sentences and two-year travel restriction orders remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeals of Shaw, Srao and Samplay, reducing their sentences and, for Srao and Samplay, the duration of their travel restriction orders. Dismissed the appeals of Khan and Wright.
• Crown Court at Manchester: His Honour Judge Hammond sentenced the appellants on 2 March 2010 following guilty pleas to cocaine importation or supply offences.