Harrison & Ors, R. v

In sentencing appeals arising from a large drug-supply conspiracy, guideline quantities and starting points do not impose a ceiling where the conspiracy substantially exceeds them. The court may assess the conspiracy’s overall scale, continuing criminality, the offender’s role in the wider operation and the harm enabled by transporting substantial quantities.

Unfair disparity is assessed by comparing starting points before guilty-plea credit and personal mitigation or aggravation. Sentences need not be mathematically proportionate. Intervention requires an objectively justifiable sense of grievance such that an informed observer would think something had gone seriously wrong with the sentencing process. A recent record for serious Class A drug trafficking may justify a substantial uplift. A sentence cannot be backdated, but an appellate court may correct the term to achieve the lawful sentencing intention.

Twenty-one defendants were sentenced by His Honour Judge Richard Williams in the Crown Court at Newport for their roles in a large conspiracy to supply heroin throughout the United Kingdom. The conspiracy involved at least 150 kilograms of heroin at an average purity of 30 per cent.

Andre Harrison appealed against his sentence with leave. Raymond Lee renewed an application for leave to appeal, alleging excessive sentence and unfair disparity. Craig Morgan applied for an extension of time to appeal against an amended sentence, following an error in calculating the term required to give effect to the sentencing judge’s intended commencement date.

The central issues were the proper use of the sentencing guideline, comparison of sentences within a conspiracy, the effect of previous drug-trafficking convictions, and correction of Morgan’s sentence.

1. Harrison: The appeal was dismissed. The proper comparison in an alleged disparity case was between starting points, before credit for guilty pleas and adjustments for personal mitigation or aggravating features. The apparent comparison based on net sentences was therefore false.
2. The placing of defendants in an order of seriousness and culpability is not a precise mathematical exercise. Appellate intervention requires an objectively justifiable sense of grievance which would cause an informed observer to think that something had gone seriously wrong with the sentencing process. Harrison’s starting point of 14 years was not manifestly excessive, and his 17-year starting point after a three-year uplift was justified by his serious recent Class A drug-trafficking convictions and involvement shortly after release on licence.
3. In a continuing conspiracy, the sentencing court may assess the overall scale and operation rather than focusing solely on the individual quantities directly received by an offender. A guideline based on substantially lower quantities does not prevent a higher starting point where the conspiracy involves quantities massively exceeding the guideline’s indicative figures. The court accepted that the sentencing judge was particularly well placed to assess the defendants’ relative roles and culpability.
4. Lee: The renewed application was refused. The judge was entitled to place Lee, a trusted and widely travelling courier who knew the scale and geographical extent of the operation and transported substantial quantities of heroin and cash, at the top of the significant-role range. His sentence of 10 years was not manifestly excessive.
5. Morgan: The extension of time was granted and the appeal allowed. The sentencing judge had intended the conspiracy sentence to run from 5 October 2018, but there was no power to backdate its commencement. The amended sentence of five years seven months was quashed and a sentence of four years four months was substituted, to run from 29 October 2019, giving effect to the judge’s intended outcome.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2020] EWCA Crim 1502, Harrison’s appeal was dismissed, Lee’s renewed application for leave was refused, and Morgan’s appeal was allowed with a substituted sentence.
2. Crown Court at Newport: His Honour Judge Richard Williams sentenced the defendants in October 2019 for their roles in the heroin-supply conspiracy. Morgan’s amended sentence was later reduced at a slip-rule hearing.