Quartey, R. v

In appeals against sentence for organised street supply of Class A drugs, the Court of Appeal will not interfere unless the sentence is manifestly excessive. A sentencing judge may place an offender towards the top of the applicable guideline range where the offending is organised, exploits very young participants, and has an exceptionally severe and evidenced impact on the local community.

Comparisons with co-offenders do not establish excess where their roles, ages, records, circumstances, or sentences differ. A potentially merciful sentence imposed on a more culpable co-offender does not of itself make another offender’s sentence unjust.

Fifteen defendants were sentenced in the Crown Court at Woolwich for offences connected with a well-organised operation supplying crack cocaine and heroin in Plumstead. The operation used dealing telephones, runners and designated locations in blocks of flats. Its activities caused severe distress and degradation in the local community.

Alfred Quartey pleaded guilty to ten supply offences and received concurrent terms of four and a half years’ detention in a young offender institution. Levy Revardeau pleaded guilty to ten such offences and Anthony Ndungu to two; each received concurrent terms of three years’ detention. Quartey renewed an application for leave to appeal following refusal by the single judge, while Revardeau and Ndungu appealed by leave of the single judge.

The central issue was whether any sentence was manifestly excessive, having regard to guideline role categories, mitigation, guilty-plea credit and sentencing comparisons.

1. The application and both appeals were dismissed. None of the three sentences was manifestly excessive.

2. Quartey played a significant role in a sophisticated and organised supply operation. His extensive contact with dealing telephones, involvement in larger transactions, handling of substantial cash, and apparent control over younger runners justified that assessment. The judge was entitled to adopt a starting point towards the top of the guideline range for a significant role.

3. The severe, specifically evidenced effect of the offending on residents was a substantial aggravating feature. For adult offenders, the use of very young teenagers in the operation was also aggravating. The sentencing judge had properly taken account of youth and other personal mitigation, and had allowed full credit for guilty pleas.

4. Revardeau was properly treated as having a lesser role, although his involvement approached the significant-role category. His age relative to most co-defendants, repeated involvement in drug sales, possession of material promoting the dealing telephone numbers, and motivation by financial gain justified a starting point at the top of the lesser-role range.

5. Ndungu’s involvement was limited to one day, and his personal circumstances were mitigatory. Nevertheless, the sentencing judge was best placed to assess his culpability and the comparison with co-defendants. Differences in another offender’s age, record, licence position and overall custodial consequences meant that no unjust disparity was established.

6. A comparatively lenient sentence for the leading conspirator, or for any other co-offender, did not provide a basis to reduce these sentences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — the application and appeals against sentence were dismissed in [2013] EWCA Crim 2518.
• Crown Court at Woolwich — on 5 July 2013, Judge Topolski QC sentenced the defendants for offences relating to the supply of Class A controlled drugs.