Gill & Anor, R v

In a large-scale drug conspiracy, the sentencing court may assess culpability by reference to the overall quantity, the offender’s role and the importance of different functions within the operation. Wholesale and retail roles may be equally culpable. Where the trial judge heard the evidence concerning numerous conspirators, the appellate court will attach weight to that judge’s assessment of quantity and role. A sentence may also be uplifted within the applicable guideline range to reflect further offending committed before sentence, even if the earlier offence has not yet been sentenced.

Bradley Gill and James Foy appealed against sentences imposed at Preston Crown Court for conspiracy to supply cocaine. Gill had pleaded guilty and received 14 years’ imprisonment. Foy had been convicted after trial and received six and a half years.

The appeals challenged the assessment of the quantity of cocaine, the appellants’ roles, alleged disparity with other conspirators, and the reliance on Foy’s previous conviction for conspiracy to produce cannabis. The central issues were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had been entitled to place the offending within the categories selected.

Both appeals against sentence were dismissed.

1. The trial judge had heard the evidence and sentenced numerous conspirators. He was therefore best placed to assess the quantity of cocaine involved and the respective roles of the participants. The Court of Appeal held that he was entitled, on a conservative basis, to find that the conspiracy involved at least 28 kilos of high-purity cocaine.
2. Under step 1 of the definitive guideline for drugs offences, an operation on the most serious and commercial scale involving a quantity significantly above category 1 may justify sentences of 20 years or more, depending on role. The scale of the conspiracy and the leading roles of Bradley and Anthony Gill justified a pre-credit sentence of at least 20 years. Bradley Gill’s 14-year sentence, after credit for his guilty plea, was justified.
3. Different functions may be equally important within an organised drug conspiracy. The judge was entitled to treat wholesale activity and retail activity as equally culpable, so the disparity argument did not assist Bradley Gill.
4. As to James Foy, the judge was entitled to treat the evidence of a house-brick-sized package, transported in a vehicle adapted to conceal cocaine, as supporting category 2 offending rather than category 3. His sentence of six and a half years fell within the applicable range.
5. The judge was also entitled to uplift the sentence within that range to reflect Foy’s previous conspiracy to produce cannabis, even though he had not yet been sentenced for that offence. Neither sentence was manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): both appeals against sentence were dismissed on 25 August 2020: [2020] EWCA Crim 1188.
• Preston Crown Court: Bradley Gill was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to supply cocaine. James Foy was sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment after conviction at trial.