Sofroniou, R v

In sentencing for a drug-supply conspiracy, a basis of plea which admits involvement over a stated period does not require the court to disregard the wider evidence or reasonable inferences from it. The court may assess the offender’s role in the conspiracy from the evidence as a whole, provided its conclusion is not inconsistent with the facts admitted.

The characterisation of an offender’s role under the sentencing guideline is for the court. A sentence may properly differ from that of a co-offender where relevant aggravating features, including offending on licence and a more recent serious drugs conviction, justify the distinction.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. His written basis of plea admitted receiving drugs from a co-conspirator and selling them on between November 2013 and January 2014, while disputing involvement in some alleged dealings.

The sentencing judge treated the applicant as playing a leading role in a category 2 cocaine conspiracy. Starting at 13 years’ imprisonment and allowing full credit for the guilty plea, the judge imposed eight years and eight months’ imprisonment.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application to the Court of Appeal. He argued that the basis of plea required a significant, rather than leading, role and that his sentence should have been reduced to match that of a co-defendant. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had been entitled to assess the applicant’s role from the overall evidence.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment was neither wrong in itself nor disproportionate when compared with the sentences imposed on co-defendants.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the applicant had played a leading role in the cocaine-supply conspiracy. The written basis of plea admitted involvement from November 2013 to January 2014. It did not confine the court to three particular incidents or assert that the applicant had not supplied drugs himself.

3. A sentencing court is not required to ignore the overall evidence merely because the basis of plea is sparse. It may draw sensible inferences from the evidence, including the extensive contacts with co-conspirators, meetings at the applicant’s business premises, and his dealings with other participants. The leading-role finding was not inconsistent with the facts admitted in the basis of plea.

4. The classification of an offender’s role as leading or significant under the sentencing guideline is for the court, rather than the Crown. The judge was also entitled to distinguish the applicant’s sentence from that of Nadarajah. The applicant’s more recent serious drugs conviction and his commission of the conspiracy while on licence independently justified differentiation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused: [2016] EWCA Crim 669.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: following a guilty plea to conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, the applicant was sentenced to eight years and eight months’ imprisonment.