Eldridge, R v

In sentencing, the court must base its assessment of an offender’s role on admissible evidence properly advanced against that offender. Evidence introduced by a co-defendant, but not relied on by the prosecution and not admissible against the offender, cannot justify an adverse role finding.

Under the drug-offence guidelines, role must reflect the offender’s actual knowledge and operational involvement. Evidence of vulnerability and limited cognitive ability may preclude a leading-role finding, while awareness of the operation and an operational function for reward may support a significant role. The guideline starting point may be increased for drug quantity and previous convictions, but personal circumstances and psychological vulnerability remain relevant mitigation.

The appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of conspiracy to supply cannabis. The conspiracy concerned 970 kilograms of cannabis resin stored in a garage rented by the appellant. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment after the Recorder treated him as having a leading role in a category 1 drug offence.

The appellant appealed his sentence with permission. The central issues were whether the Recorder had wrongly relied on evidence introduced by the co-defendant, rather than by the Crown, and whether the appellant’s role and sentence had been assessed correctly under the sentencing guidelines.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of six years.

2. The Recorder had wrongly treated evidence concerning other alleged drug activity as evidence proved against the appellant. It had been adduced by the co-defendant, not the Crown. It was outside the indictment, concerned unnamed persons, was not admissible against the appellant and was denied by him. Both parties accepted that this was an error.

3. The admissible evidence was confined to the storage of the drugs on 8 and 9 September 2015. It did not support a leading-role finding. The appellant’s borderline intelligence, limited cognitive skills and resulting vulnerability supported the conclusion that he was liable to exploitation.

4. Nevertheless, the appellant’s role was not lesser. He must have understood the scale of the operation and performed an operational role for reward. His role was therefore significant.

5. For a category 1 offence with a significant role, the relevant guideline starting point was five years and six months, with a range of five to seven years. The substantial drug quantity and previous conviction justified an upward adjustment. Family circumstances and psychological difficulties provided some mitigation. A six-year sentence was proper.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted six years’ imprisonment.

• Central Criminal Court: The appellant was convicted on 15 December 2016 of conspiracy to supply cannabis and sentenced on 27 January 2017 to 12 years’ imprisonment.