Wright, R. v

In sentencing participants in a serious drugs-importation conspiracy, the starting point must reflect material differences in their roles, culpability, previous convictions and additional offending. A specialist role may be crucial and properly fall within a leading role, but it may nonetheless justify a lower starting point than that of the organiser and principal figure.

A sentence may be excessive where comparison with co-offenders shows that those differences have not been sufficiently reflected. An offender who abandons a factual basis of plea and is sentenced on the full facts cannot ordinarily reopen those assertions on appeal without having pursued them at the Newton hearing.

The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to contravene section 170(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. He used his piloting skills and aircraft business as cover for repeated importations of cocaine from Germany. Following his arrest, evidence indicated that at least 268 kilograms of cocaine had been imported during the conspiracy.

He initially advanced a basis of plea which limited his knowledge and role. The Crown did not accept it. He withdrew it when a Newton hearing was due to take place, and he was sentenced on the full facts to 19 years’ imprisonment at the Central Criminal Court.

His co-offenders included Vango, the organiser, and Williams, Vango’s trusted lieutenant. The appeal challenged the factual basis, credit for plea, personal mitigation, disparity with those co-offenders and the overall length of sentence.

1. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed. The sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a sentence of 16 years.

2. The appellant could not reopen on appeal his assertions about the number of importations and the quantity of drugs. Those matters contradicted the Crown’s case on which he was sentenced after withdrawing his basis of plea. If he wished to maintain them, he should have done so at the Newton hearing and supported them by evidence.

3. There was no error concerning credit for plea. Although the appellant withdrew his factual assertions only at the last moment, the sentencing judge expressly gave him a full discount for his guilty plea.

4. The appellant played a crucial and leading role. His specialist ability as a pilot, use of an aircraft business as cover, trusted links with the source of supply and anticipated substantial gain all supported that assessment. The scale of the importation also placed the offending far above the highest quantity specified in the Sentencing Council’s Importation Guideline.

5. However, the 28-year starting point did not sufficiently reflect the distinction between the appellant and Vango. Vango had the greater organising role, committed further serious offences, and had a relevant previous conviction. The appellant also had a justified complaint when compared with Williams: apart from the separate Firearms Act offence, it was difficult to justify treating the appellant more severely than Williams for the conspiracy and subsequent drug offending.

6. A starting point of 24 years was appropriate. Applying the same full credit for plea as the judge had allowed produced a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on an application for leave to appeal against sentence, the court granted leave and allowed the appeal: [2017] EWCA Crim 126.
• Central Criminal Court — after transfer from Leeds Crown Court, the appellant was sentenced on 9 February 2016 to 19 years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy.