Williams, R. v

In a large drug-conspiracy sentencing exercise, the sentencing judge is usually best placed to assess each offender’s role, responsibility and parity with co-conspirators. An appellate court will rarely interfere unless the sentence rests on an obvious factual mistake, an error of principle, or an assessment of relevant factors that no reasonable judge could make.

A complaint of disparity requires a very high threshold. The question is whether properly informed right-thinking members of the public would conclude that something had gone wrong in the administration of justice.

Thirty defendants pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Swansea to offences arising from organised conspiracies to supply Class A drugs across west and south-west Wales. The sentencing judge imposed sentences after dealing with the defendants’ differing roles, including at trials and Newton hearings.

Three defendants renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence. A fourth, Christopher Morris, appealed with leave granted by the single judge. The issues were whether the sentences were wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, including whether the findings concerning role, drug quantity and parity were open to the sentencing judge.

1. The three renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused and Morris’s appeal was dismissed.

2. In a substantial multi-defendant drug conspiracy, the sentencing judge will ordinarily have a markedly better grasp than the appellate court of the evidence, the offenders’ respective roles and the need for parity. The Court of Appeal should not revisit that assessment unless the factual basis was obviously mistaken, there was an error of principle, or the evaluation of relevant factors was one no reasonable judge could reach.

3. Thorne’s challenge to the finding that he received more than eight kilograms of heroin failed. The finding followed a two-day Newton hearing, was supported by intercepted deliveries, and the calculation was conservative. His leading role, continuation of supply after a known heroin death, previous convictions, quantity of drugs and parity with others justified a starting point just above the guideline range and a final sentence of 16 years after credit for plea.

4. A disparity argument succeeds only at a high threshold: informed right-thinking members of the public must consider that the sentence reveals a failure in the administration of justice. The sentencing judge had expressly considered parity, and the comparisons advanced did not justify intervention.

5. Morris’s agreed basis of plea supported the conclusion that his links with the leaders of the crime group were criminal and direct. The judge was entitled to treat him as a conduit or facilitator rather than merely a courier. That significant role, together with a previous cocaine-dealing conviction, justified a starting point at the top of the applicable category range and an eight-year sentence after credit for plea.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed applications of Williams, Thorne and Bailey for leave to appeal against sentence, and dismissed Morris’s sentence appeal.
• Crown Court at Swansea: in March 2018, sentenced the defendants after guilty pleas for their parts in conspiracies to supply Class A drugs.