Stanislas, R. v

In sentencing for a drug-supply conspiracy, the definitive guideline applies to the conspiracy but must be adjusted to reflect an individual offender’s actual period of involvement, transactions and role. Participation in a wider criminal enterprise remains aggravating, especially where the offender knew its scale.

Where a consecutive sentence is imposed for separate offending, totality is met if the sentencing judge has made an appropriate reduction and the aggregate custodial term is not manifestly excessive. Ordinary delay while proceedings against co-conspirators are resolved does not justify reducing an otherwise appropriate sentence.

Stanislas and Ngaman pleaded guilty to two conspiracies to supply cocaine and heroin from London to Southampton. Stanislas had made two delivery trips. Ngaman centrally organised the telephone line and drug runs over more than two months.

His Honour Judge Shorrock sentenced Stanislas to concurrent terms of three years’ detention, consecutive to a nine-year custodial term imposed shortly before for separate violent offending. Ngaman received concurrent terms of six years and eight months’ imprisonment after credit for an early guilty plea.

Stanislas appealed his sentence with leave. Ngaman renewed his application for leave after refusal by the single judge. The issues were whether totality required a further reduction for Stanislas and whether Ngaman’s sentence was excessive.

Stanislas’s appeal against sentence was dismissed, and Ngaman’s renewed application for leave to appeal was refused.

1. The court held that the sentencing judge had properly applied totality to Stanislas’s consecutive sentence. The judge had expressly taken account of the existing extended sentence and significantly discounted the sentence for the drug conspiracies. The resulting aggregate of 12 years’ detention, subject to the licence extension imposed in the separate case, was not manifestly excessive.

2. The definitive drug-offences guideline applied to conspiracies. Applying R v Khan [2013] EWCA Crim 800, the court accepted that an offender’s limited part in a conspiracy may justify adjustment of the guideline category. However, knowing participation in a wider drug operation was aggravating. Stanislas had joined an established London-to-Southampton operation and had travelled with a regular courier.

3. Stanislas’s offending fell within category 3 with a significant role. A sentence imposed in isolation would probably have exceeded the four-and-a-half-year starting point. His youth reduced the appropriate sentence, but his previous convictions and the wider conspiracy increased it. The three-year consecutive sentence therefore already reflected a substantial totality reduction.

4. Ngaman’s central organising role, the scale and duration of the enterprise, and offending while on licence justified a pre-plea starting point at the top of the category 2 significant-role range. Ordinary delay arising from the disposal of proceedings against co-accused did not warrant a reduction. The single judge had correctly refused leave.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By judgment dated 20 September 2016, [2016] EWCA Crim 1520, dismissed Stanislas’s sentence appeal and refused Ngaman’s renewed application for leave to appeal.
• Sentencing court: On 29 February 2016, His Honour Judge Shorrock imposed concurrent three-year sentences on Stanislas, consecutive to his existing sentence, and concurrent sentences of six years and eight months on Ngaman.