Lopez, R. v

In sentencing a conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, the drug-offences guideline for substantive offences should also be used. Where the conspiracy involves multiple supplies, the sentencer may consider the aggregate quantity of drugs. Conspiracy is itself aggravating because each conspirator knowingly assists and encourages the other.

A sustained drugs operation, use of a drugs line, and supply of more than one Class A drug may require a significant increase from the guideline starting point. Personal mitigation may carry limited weight where offending was committed on licence or in breach of a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence should ordinarily be activated and, subject to totality, normally run consecutively so that the overall punishment remains just and proportionate.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at Wood Green, Rowan Lopez and Mark Lawrence were convicted of conspiracies to supply cocaine and heroin between January and March 2018. They operated a mobile-phone drugs line used to arrange commercial supplies.

The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences of three years and nine months’ imprisonment on each count. He activated Lawrence’s existing 14-month suspended sentence in full, but ordered it to run concurrently. The Attorney General referred the sentences as unduly lenient.

The central issues were whether the Recorder had given sufficient weight to the aggravating features of the conspiracies and whether the suspended sentence should have been activated consecutively.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The sentences were unduly lenient. The court quashed them and substituted total sentences of six years’ imprisonment for each offender.

2. The drug-offences guideline applied although the convictions were for conspiracy. Following R v Khan [2014] 1 Cr App R(S) 10, the court held that a sentencer may consider the aggregate drug quantity where a conspiracy comprises multiple supplies. Participation in a conspiracy is also aggravating because each conspirator both performs a role and knowingly gives comfort and assistance to the other.

3. The Recorder should have made a significant upward adjustment from the four-and-a-half-year guideline starting point. The relevant aggravating features were the nearly two-month duration, the drugs line used to advertise and facilitate supply, and the supply of both cocaine and heroin. Lopez’s recent drug-trafficking conviction and commission of the offences while on licence were further serious aggravation. Lawrence offended in breach of a suspended sentence and shortly after a drug-related conviction.

4. Under Schedule 12 paragraph 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Lawrence’s suspended term had to be activated in full or in a reduced extent unless that would be unjust. Subject to totality, an activated term will usually run consecutively to sentence for later offending; otherwise the overall sentence may fail to be just and proportionate. The court reduced the activated term to nine months to achieve totality, but made it consecutive.

5. Lopez received six years’ imprisonment concurrently on the two counts. Lawrence received five years and three months concurrently on the two counts, followed by the consecutive nine-month activated term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave on the Attorney General’s reference, held the sentences unduly lenient, quashed them, and substituted total sentences of six years’ imprisonment for each offender.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: Following jury convictions for two conspiracies to supply Class A drugs, imposed concurrent terms of three years and nine months. Lawrence’s 14-month suspended sentence was activated concurrently.