Gray, R v

In sentencing a participant in a drug-supply conspiracy, the court must assess that offender’s own role and the period and transactions in which they were involved. A limited role may justify a lower guideline category. However, participation in a wider criminal enterprise is aggravating, particularly where the offender knew its scale. The sentencing judge is best placed to evaluate the offender’s overall role after hearing the trial evidence. An appellate court will not interfere merely because the sentence was robust or because a different guideline category was arguable. It must be shown to be manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted at Northampton Crown Court of conspiring to supply cocaine between January and August 2016. He received seven years and six months’ imprisonment.

The prosecution case was that he had assisted his brother, a high-level supplier, by meeting members of a Northampton drug group and facilitating the supply of kilogram quantities of high-purity cocaine. The appellant contended that his involvement was limited and that the sentencing judge should have placed him in category 2 of the relevant guideline, rather than sentencing him by reference to a lesser role in a category 1 conspiracy.

He appealed, with the single judge’s leave, on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment was robust but was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court applied the approach in R v Kasim Ali Khan and Others [2013] EWCA Crim 800. In a conspiracy, sentence must reflect an individual offender’s limited period of participation, transactions, or smaller role. That consideration is balanced against the aggravating nature of participation in a wider criminal enterprise, including the offender’s awareness of its scale.

3. The judge had heard the trial evidence and was entitled to find that the appellant’s knowledge of the operation was greater than he had admitted. Although his conduct was properly classified as a lesser role, aspects of it were closer to a significant role. His involvement in arranging or making two substantial cocaine deliveries, the high purity of the drug, and the scale of the conspiracy justified a sentence towards the upper end of the alternative category advanced on his behalf.

4. The difference between the upper end of category 2 and the middle or lower part of category 1 did not demonstrate error. The sentencing judge was best placed to assess the appellant’s role overall, and the resulting sentence fell within the permissible range.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed in [2018] EWCA Crim 1075.

• Crown Court at Northampton: The appellant was convicted on 27 June 2017 of conspiracy to supply cocaine and sentenced on 8 September 2017 to seven years and six months’ imprisonment.