Quinn & Ors, R v

In a sentence appeal, apparent disparity with sentences imposed on co-offenders does not establish error unless the necessary disparity test is met. The court must assess the offenders’ respective roles, the nature and scale of the offending, antecedents, mitigation, and the basis on which each co-offender was sentenced.

A sentence may be reduced where the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to previous good character and personal mitigation, even though the offender knowingly provided important assistance in drug trafficking.

Three appellants appealed, with leave of the single judge, against sentences imposed at Newcastle Crown Court after guilty pleas arising from drug-supply activity in the north-east of England.

Quinn received 18 months’ imprisonment for possessing £5,720 of criminal property. Wilkinson received two years’ imprisonment for being concerned in supplying cannabis after transporting more than 23 kilograms of cannabis resin. Carroll received two years’ imprisonment for drug-supply conspiracies and supplying BZP after acting as a courier in a substantial one-day transaction.

Each appellant contended that the sentence was excessive. They relied, in differing respects, on mitigation and alleged disparity with sentences imposed on other offenders.

1. Quinn’s and Carroll’s appeals were dismissed. Wilkinson’s appeal was allowed. Wilkinson’s sentence was reduced from two years’ to 16 months’ imprisonment.

2. Quinn held nearly £6,000 which represented the proceeds of Morgan’s drug dealing and had agreed to keep it for him. He was close to the source of the criminal property and played a significant assisting role. The sentencing court could therefore take account of the nature of the underlying drug offending. Robinson’s suspended sentence did not create disparity: Robinson was of previous good character, dealt with a smaller sum, and believed it was to purchase stolen televisions rather than drugs.

3. Wilkinson was not an organiser or manager, but knowingly transported a very large consignment of cannabis to assist McNally in keeping it from the police. The court nevertheless held that the judge had given insufficient weight to Wilkinson’s previous good character and personal mitigation. A 16-month custodial term properly reflected the offending and the plea.

4. Carroll was a subordinate courier on one occasion, but transported drugs worth about £80,000, had an appreciable criminal record, and entered a relatively late guilty plea. The sentence was not objectively excessive. Although Nuttall, who recruited Carroll and sourced the drugs, received four years’ imprisonment, the difference did not satisfy the disparity test enunciated in Fawcett.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) allowed Wilkinson’s sentence appeal and substituted 16 months’ imprisonment; dismissed the appeals of Quinn and Carroll.
• Crown Court at Newcastle sentenced Quinn to 18 months’ imprisonment and Wilkinson and Carroll each to two years’ imprisonment on 21 October 2011.