Waddington, R. v

A sentencing court may place a leading participant in a Category 1 drug conspiracy at the top of the applicable guideline range where the scale, wholesale nature and purity of the drugs justify that assessment. It may also treat previous drug trafficking as aggravating.

The sentencing judge is particularly well placed, having conducted the trial, to assess each offender’s role and whether asserted personal mitigation has genuine weight. A reduction for bereavement-related mitigation may properly be limited where the offender relied on the bereavement to advance a dishonest defence and had provided little useful information to the police.

The applicant was convicted after trial at Liverpool Crown Court of conspiracy to supply amphetamine. He had organised the Liverpool end of a conspiracy that trafficked substantial quantities of relatively high-purity amphetamine to a separate West Midlands group.

On 28 November 2016, the Recorder sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The Recorder treated the offence as a Category 1 conspiracy, assessed the applicant as having a leading role, adopted a starting point of 10 years, and reduced it by one year for personal mitigation connected with the murder of the applicant’s son.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application to appeal against sentence. The issues were whether the sentence was disparate and whether the mitigation warranted a greater reduction.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed as not properly arguable. A nine-year sentence was within the permissible range.

2. The Recorder was entitled to treat the conspiracy as Category 1. It involved wholesale distribution of up to 100 kilograms of relatively high-purity amphetamine. The applicant had a leading role. The applicable starting point was eight years, with a range of seven to 10 years, and a starting point at the top of that range was justified. His previous drug-trafficking conviction was an aggravating feature.

3. The Recorder was uniquely placed, having presided at trial, to assess the relative roles of the conspirators. The Court would not undermine that assessment.

4. The Recorder was also entitled to give only a one-year reduction for the murder of the applicant’s son. The jury had rejected the applicant’s case that his association with traffickers was to obtain information about the murder. The Recorder could regard the use of the bereavement to advance a dishonest defence as aggravating rather than as grounds for a larger reduction.

5. The material from the officer investigating the murder reinforced the Recorder’s sceptical assessment. The applicant had supplied very limited information. The Recorder had done justice by allowing a one-year reduction, rather than a reduction of the kind made for valuable assistance to the police.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

• Liverpool Crown Court: following conviction after trial for conspiracy to supply amphetamine, the applicant was sentenced on 28 November 2016 to nine years’ imprisonment.