Doforo, R. v

Sentencing guideline categories must be applied flexibly. The sentencing court must select a sentence within or across the relevant ranges that proportionately reflects the whole offending, rather than treating the indicative drug quantity as conclusive.

In an ongoing Class A drug-supply enterprise, duration, the offender’s leading role and the use of cuckooing may materially increase seriousness. A previous conviction for Class A drug dealing is a serious aggravating feature under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 143(2), and may justify an appreciably longer custodial term for persistent professional offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty at trial to two counts of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, cocaine and heroin. He headed a Liverpool-based group which supplied drugs in Cumbria over almost two years. The operation used drug users and cuckooing, and was estimated to have supplied about three kilograms of drugs.

At Carlisle Crown Court he received concurrent sentences of 14 years and six months’ imprisonment. The judge adopted a pre-discount sentence of 16 years, reduced by 10 per cent for the guilty plea. The appellant appealed by leave of the single judge, contending that 16 years was manifestly excessive for offending falling within quantity category 2 of the applicable guideline.

Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled to adopt a pre-discount sentence of 16 years and to place it at the top of the category 1 range.

1. The applicable guideline gave overlapping ranges for a leading role: category 1 had a starting point of 14 years and a range of 12 to 16 years; category 2 had a starting point of 11 years and a range of 9 to 13 years. In accordance with R v Healey [2012] EWCA Crim 1005, those ranges required a flexible and proportionate assessment. The estimated quantity of at least three kilograms lay above the category 2 indicator and below the category 1 indicator. Quantity was not, however, the sole measure of seriousness in a continuing enterprise intended to operate for as long as possible.
2. The appellant occupied the leading role. The serious feature of cuckooing was properly reflected in that assessment, consistently with R v Ajayi [2017] EWCA Crim 1011. The lengthy duration of the offending also required an increase.
3. The appellant’s previous conviction for Class A drug dealing was a very serious aggravating feature. Applying section 143(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court treated persistent professional Class A drug dealing after substantial previous imprisonment as warranting appreciably longer terms, both for deterrence and because of the deliberate, financially driven nature of the offending.
4. Although a somewhat shorter pre-discount sentence would suffice in most comparable cases, the combined aggravating features justified entry into the category 1 range and a sentence at its upper limit. The concurrent sentences of 14 years and six months therefore stood.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2018] EWCA Crim 1506.
2. Crown Court at Carlisle: On 17 July 2017, the appellant received concurrent sentences of 14 years and six months’ imprisonment for two conspiracies to supply Class A drugs.