Pitts & Ors, R. v

In sentencing drug conspiracies, offence-specific guideline weights may provide an entry point but do not determine sentence. The court must assess the defendant’s participation in the agreement and its scope. It should not apply the guidelines mechanically by reference to drugs recovered at the end of a surveillance operation.

An undisputed and tenable basis of plea that is material to sentence must be respected unless the court identifies the dispute and, if it persists, resolves it through a Newton hearing. A sentencing court must not treat mitigation advanced for a co-defendant as evidence against another defendant. For guideline comparison, methcathinone and mephedrone are properly compared with amphetamine; purity does not alter the weight calculation, although high purity may aggravate the offending.

Ten defendants appealed sentences imposed by HHJ Beech in the Preston Crown Court after guilty pleas to connected conspiracies involving cocaine, amphetamine, cannabis, methcathinone or mephedrone, and related offending. The prosecutions arose from undercover operations concerning commercial drug importation, production, storage and supply.

The appeals challenged, among other matters, the treatment of agreed bases of plea, role assessments, guideline comparators for mephedrone, guilty-plea credit, totality and disparity. The common issue was whether the sentencing exercise had produced sentences that were wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Outcome. The court allowed the appeals of Bowden, Waters, Rooks, Harding, Murphy, Pitts, McDonald, Knight and Booth, and substituted lower sentences. McComb’s appeal was dismissed.
2. Bases of plea and sentencing process. The judge’s fragmented sentencing process had led to error and inconsistency. Where the prosecution had accepted a tenable basis of plea material to sentence, the judge could not disregard it without identifying the dispute and requiring a Newton hearing if it persisted. The judge also erred by treating matters advanced in mitigation for co-defendants as evidence aggravating Waters and Pitts.
3. Guidelines and drug comparator. The definitive drug guidelines could assist by providing entry points, but conspiracy sentencing required assessment of the extent and scope of each appellant’s participation. The court endorsed comparison of mephedrone with amphetamine rather than cannabis. Purity did not affect the guideline weight, but the high purity of unadulterated mephedrone was capable of aggravating the offence.
4. Credit and mitigation. Remorse could mitigate sentence but could not increase credit for a guilty plea. Good behaviour after arrest, whether on bail or in custody, was neutral; misconduct could undermine a claimed reduction for remorse.
5. Substituted sentences. The court imposed: Bowden, 9 years 6 months; Waters, 7 years 9 months; Rooks, 8 years 6 months; Harding, 7 years; Murphy, 4 years 3 months; Pitts, 3 years 9 months; McDonald, 3 years; Knight, 3 years 9 months; and Booth, 18 months. McComb’s sentence of 6 years 9 months, although reached by an illogical stated mechanism, was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed nine sentence appeals and substituted reduced sentences; dismissed McComb’s appeal: [2014] EWCA Crim 1615.
• Preston Crown Court: HHJ Beech sentenced the appellants on 31 October and 1 November 2013 following guilty pleas to drug conspiracies and related offences.