Turner & Anor, R v

A sentencing judge may impose a total sentence above the guideline range for a leading-role Class A drug conspiracy where the scale, purity and commercial sophistication of the operation justify it, and where a separate but linked money-laundering conspiracy adds distinct criminality. The principle of totality permits the overall criminality to be reflected in the sentence for the lead count with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

Participation in a conspiracy is itself aggravating. A sentencing judge who heard the trial may also make relevant findings to the criminal standard, notwithstanding another defendant’s acquittal on a related allegation.

Turner and Mabbott were convicted after a trial at the Crown Court at Leeds of conspiracy to supply cocaine and conspiracy to transfer criminal property. The evidence concerned a commercial cocaine operation involving high-purity drugs and substantial cash movements. Turner received 20 years’ imprisonment and Mabbott 18 years’ imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for the money-laundering conspiracy.

Both renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge. They challenged their leading-role classifications, the sentences above the guideline range, the treatment of the conspiracy and money-laundering offending, and the totality of the sentences. Turner’s separate appeal against conviction had already been dismissed: [2020] EWCA Crim 1241.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused. The total sentences of 20 years for Turner and 18 years for Mabbott were just, proportionate and not arguably manifestly excessive.
2. The trial judge was entitled to find that both applicants had leading roles in a sophisticated, commercial cocaine conspiracy. Turner was the senior participant. Mabbott was somewhat junior, which justified the two-year difference between their sentences. The judge had heard the lengthy trial and was particularly well placed to assess their culpability.
3. The quantity and high purity of the cocaine, combined with the leading-role factors, justified a sentence for the cocaine conspiracy above the guideline range. The judge was also entitled to find, to the criminal standard, that the cocaine recovered from the van formed part of the conspiracy, despite Choudury’s acquittal in connection with that episode.
4. Following R v Khan [2013] EWCA Crim 800, participation in a conspiracy was an aggravating feature. Each conspirator gives knowing assistance and reassurance to the enterprise, and culpability increases with awareness of its scale. The court also accepted that the evidential events were snapshots of a wider conspiracy.
5. The money-laundering conspiracy was separate additional criminality, even though it overlapped with the drug operation. The judge properly applied totality by selecting an overall sentence which reflected both conspiracies and imposing concurrent sentences on the secondary count.
6. The court noted that a victim-surcharge order should not have been made while confiscation proceedings were postponed under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 15(2)(ca). However, applying R v Bristowe [2019] EWCA Crim 2005, it identified no prejudice or exceptional circumstance requiring the surcharge orders to be quashed.

Turner’s separate conviction appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2020] EWCA Crim 1241. This judgment concerns sentence only.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Refused both renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Leeds — On 23 August 2018, convicted both applicants of the drug and criminal-property conspiracies and imposed the challenged sentences.