Cruikshank, R. v

For a substantial importation of cocaine, a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment or more may be justified. A defendant who did not admit involvement in interview may nevertheless receive full credit for a guilty plea where the circumstances warrant it, but no greater reduction is required.

A travel restriction order may properly follow conviction for a drug-trafficking offence. Its impact on family visits after release does not make it disproportionate where the offender’s frequent travel and the nature of the offence demonstrate a continuing justification for the restriction.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Croydon Crown Court to fraudulent evasion of a prohibition contrary to section 170(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. He had imported 5.79 kilograms of cocaine at 100% purity from St Lucia, concealed in coffee bags and toiletries.

He received nine years and four months’ imprisonment, with credit for remand, and a five-year travel restriction order under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. He appealed both the custodial term and the order. The issues were whether the sentence and the restriction were excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The custodial sentence and the five-year travel restriction order were fully justified.
2. The sentencing judge’s starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment and upwards was plainly correct for the importation of 5.79 kilograms of cocaine at 100% purity. The quantity was significant.
3. The appellant had initially denied involvement in interview. However, he indicated willingness to plead guilty at his first Crown Court appearance, although the plea could not then be entered because the prosecution was not ready. The judge was entitled to give full one-third credit for the plea. That was the greatest discount justified by the circumstances.
4. Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 gave jurisdiction to impose a travel restriction order because the appellant had been convicted of a drug-trafficking offence. The court recognised that the order would prevent visits to his parents and son in Jamaica after release. Nevertheless, his frequent travel between the United Kingdom and the Caribbean, together with the nature of the offence, justified the order. A duration of five years was not excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the custodial sentence and travel restriction order: [2012] EWCA Crim 1519.
• Croydon Crown Court: on 26 January 2012, following a guilty plea, imposed nine years and four months’ imprisonment and a five-year travel restriction order.