Hoddinott & Ors, R v

In sentencing for multiple offences, the court must impose a total sentence that is just and proportionate to the offending as a whole. That duty applies whether sentences are concurrent or consecutive. Concurrent terms may therefore exceed the sentence for a single offence, and notional individual sentences must not simply be added together.

Distinct conspiracies involving different drugs, personnel and methods may properly attract consecutive sentences, provided totality is observed. An appellate court will rarely interfere with a trial judge’s assessment of relative culpability in a multi-handed drugs conspiracy unless there is an obvious factual error, an error of principle, or an unreasonable assessment of relevant factors.

Four appellants appealed against sentences imposed at the Crown Court at Bristol on 4 October 2018 for two conspiracies to supply class A drugs. The conspiracies concerned one kilogram of cocaine and MDMA sufficient to produce about 10,000 ecstasy tablets.

Three appellants pleaded guilty to both counts. Woolley was convicted after trial. The sentencing judge imposed consecutive sentences for the two conspiracies, resulting in total terms of between nine years and four months and 12 years. Waugh’s terms were also consecutive to a sentence already being served for arson and driving while disqualified.

Each appellant submitted that his total sentence was manifestly excessive, principally because of role and totality.

1. All appeals were dismissed. None of the total sentences was manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge, who had dealt with the case over a number of hearings, was particularly well placed to assess each offender’s relative culpability. Reiterating Williams and others [2019] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 15, the court stated that it will seldom interfere with that assessment absent an obvious factual mistake, an error of principle, or an unreasonable evaluation of relevant factors.

3. The two conspiracies were distinct agreements. They involved different drugs, personnel and methods, even though they operated at the same time. It was therefore open to the judge to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences. Consecutive terms involved no error of principle.

4. The decisive requirement was totality. The total sentence had to reflect all offending and be just and proportionate. That requirement applied irrespective of whether the sentences were concurrent or consecutive. It was not permissible merely to add notional sentences for individual offences; the court had to assess the conduct and personal factors as a whole.

5. The judge had properly applied the approach to drug conspiracies described in Khan [2013] EWCA Crim 800. Each appellant’s role had to be assessed individually, but in the context of knowing participation in high-value class A drug conspiracies. The judge was entitled to take account of the particular aggravating features, including Hoddinott’s previous drug-conspiracy conviction, Woolley’s licence status, and Waugh’s antecedents and offending while on bail.

6. The court also explained that Sanghera [2016] EWCA Crim. 94 did not establish a fixed entitlement to additional credit because an offender was first to plead guilty. Under the current guilty-plea guideline, the maximum credit remained one-third. Any further allowance for encouraging others to plead was a fact-specific mitigating consideration before guilty-plea credit.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in [2019] EWCA Crim 1462, dismissed all four appeals against sentence.
• Crown Court at Bristol: on 4 October 2018, imposed sentences for two conspiracies to supply class A drugs.