Cuni & Ors v R.

In serious commercial Class A drug offending outside the indicative quantities in the sentencing guidelines, the guidelines remain a valuable touchstone. A starting point above 30 years is reserved for conspiracies involving truly huge quantities. Within the compressed range below that ceiling, sentences must reflect each offender’s role and comparative significance, despite inevitable bunching.

A reduction in the lead offender’s sentence does not automatically require reductions for others. Each sentence must be assessed by reference to the error in the lead sentence, the reason for correcting it, and the individual offender’s role. The totality principle also requires a distinct and limited role in separate possession offences to be properly reflected in the overall term.

Six appellants appealed against sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Blackfriars for their involvement in a sophisticated operation supplying high-purity cocaine in wholesale quantities. Four were sentenced for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Two were sentenced for possession of cocaine with intent to supply.

The Recorder imposed immediate custodial terms from eight to 24 years. The principal issues were whether the lead conspirator’s sentence was manifestly excessive, whether any reduction required corresponding reductions for the other conspirators, and whether the total sentence imposed on an offender convicted only of two possession offences was proportionate.

1. The appeals of Cuni and Cera were allowed in part; the appeals of Gonzalez, Byberi, Abazi and Elezi were dismissed.
2. The drug-offence sentencing guidelines applied to the conspiracy and remained a valuable touchstone, although the known quantities permitted sentences above the guideline maxima. Applying the principles stated in R v Sanghera [2016] EWCA Crim 94, a starting point above 30 years was reserved for conspiracies involving truly huge quantities. Cuni’s 22-year sentence, after full credit for his guilty plea, represented a starting point of 33 years. That was manifestly excessive. A starting point of about 28 years was justified by his leading role in this large conspiracy. His sentence was quashed and replaced by 19 years’ imprisonment.
3. The correction of Cuni’s sentence did not establish error in the sentences of the other conspirators. The necessary assessment was individual. It depended on the extent and reason for the error in the lead sentence and on the other offender’s role. The Recorder was entitled to find that Gonzalez played a role more than significant, that Byberi was a trusted United Kingdom-based contact with at least a significant role, and that Abazi had played a significant role before the final transactions. Their sentences were not manifestly excessive.
4. Elezi’s eight-year sentence was within the Category 1 range. The high purity of the five kilograms of cocaine justified movement above the seven-year starting point.
5. Cera had not been convicted of the conspiracy. His overall 12-year sentence did not sufficiently reflect his more limited role, the scale of his own offending, and its duration. It breached the totality principle. The consecutive sentence on count 6 was reduced to three years, producing a total of nine years’ imprisonment.
6. The record in Elezi’s case was to record the qualifying-curfew deduction. The victim surcharge orders were to reflect the correct statutory amounts stated by the court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2018] EWCA Crim 600, the court reduced Cuni’s sentence from 22 to 19 years and Cera’s total sentence from 12 to nine years. It dismissed the appeals of Gonzalez, Byberi, Abazi and Elezi.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: Mr Recorder Sallon QC sentenced the six appellants on 7 April 2017 for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs or possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply.