Sakaj, R v

In sentencing a drug-trafficking conspiracy, more than one offender may properly be assessed as having a leading role. An offender who takes over an operational role from an organiser may retain a leading role even though acting under that organiser’s supervision. The sentencing judge is entitled to make that factual assessment after hearing the parties’ submissions.

Good character and personal mitigation may justify a reduction from the notional sentence, but they must be weighed against the scale, duration and organised nature of the conspiracy. A sentence within the appropriate guideline range for a leading role will not be disturbed unless it is excessive, still less manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Plymouth to conspiracy to supply cannabis and to possessing criminal property. He had taken over the West Midlands side of an organised trafficking operation after another organiser left the United Kingdom, while remaining subject to that organiser’s instructions.

The Recorder treated him as holding a leading role and imposed four years and six months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy, with a concurrent 12-month sentence for the money-laundering offence. The applicant contended that his role was significant rather than leading and that insufficient weight had been given to his good character and personal mitigation. After the single judge refused leave, he renewed his application to the Full Court.

1. The renewed application was dismissed. The total sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment was not excessive and could not be described as manifestly excessive.

2. The Recorder was entitled to assess the applicant as having a leading role. The prosecution’s characterisation of his role as highly significant did not bind the sentencing judge. The judge had raised the possible leading-role assessment during the prosecution opening, and the defence had a full opportunity to address it.

3. There can be more than one leading participant in a drug-trafficking offence. The fact that the original West Midlands organiser continued to direct aspects of the operation did not prevent the applicant from being a leader. Having taken over the operational role and played a substantial part in the later transactions, he could properly be described as holding a leading role under supervision.

4. The Recorder had also adequately reflected the applicant’s positive good character and personal mitigation. He reduced the notional sentence after trial from six years and six months to six years before allowing 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea.

5. The organised and prolonged conspiracy involved substantial quantities of cannabis and was intended to generate very substantial profits. Its conspiratorial character was a serious aggravating feature. Those matters outweighed the mitigation relied upon, and no appellate intervention was justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Full Court dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2017] EWCA Crim 2312.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): A single judge had refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Plymouth: On 26 January 2017, the applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply a Class B controlled drug and possessing criminal property. On 24 February 2017, the Recorder imposed four years and six months’ imprisonment, with a concurrent 12-month sentence for the money-laundering offence.