Johnson & Ors, R. v

A conspiracy requires proof that each defendant joined a shared unlawful design. Similar or parallel drug-supply activities do not suffice. A participant need not know every detail of the scheme, but must know that it extends beyond that person’s own transaction.

Whether the evidence supports a single wider conspiracy must be assessed separately for each defendant. Wholesale quantities, credit arrangements, onward supply, repayment through the supply chain, and dealings with other participants may permit the inference of a common design. Evidence proving only a bilateral supply arrangement and onward dealing may be insufficient to prove participation in the wider conspiracy charged.

The appellants were convicted at the Crown Court at Teesside of conspiracy to supply cocaine. The prosecution case arose from Operation Sidra, an investigation into a drug-supply network. Its principal witness, referred to as A, gave evidence after entering the statutory assisting-offender process and admitting his own offences.

The prosecution alleged one conspiracy involving A, the appellants and others. The appellants submitted that the evidence established, at most, separate supply arrangements with A. Anderson and Casey also sought permission to appeal their sentences.

The central issue was whether the evidence was capable of proving that each appellant knew of and joined the wider common design, rather than merely participating in a separate drug transaction.

1. The court allowed Casey’s conviction appeal and dismissed the other conviction appeals. It granted McBride an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, but dismissed his appeal. It dismissed Anderson’s applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. A conspiracy requires an agreement embodying a common unlawful purpose. Each defendant must have attached himself to that common design, rather than pursuing a similar but separate purpose. A conspirator need not know the full scope of the scheme, but must know that it goes beyond the particular illegal act in which he directly participates.

3. The evidence against Anderson, Belford, McBride and Johnson was sufficient for a jury to find participation in the wider conspiracy. It included repeated wholesale supplies, credit arrangements dependent on onward sale and repayment, dealings with A’s associates during his absences, and evidence of knowledge of the wider operation. Those matters could support an inference that each knew of and had an interest in the onward supply of the drugs.

4. Casey’s receipt of quantities suitable for onward supply, and his own network of purchasers, could establish an agreement between him and A involving onward supply. It did not, however, provide sufficient evidence that Casey was party to the larger conspiracy involving the other alleged conspirators. The judge should therefore have upheld his submission of no case to answer.

5. On Anderson’s sentence application, the court held that the Definitive Guideline for Drug Offences, although not directly applicable to conspiracy, was a useful starting point. The trial judge was entitled to treat Anderson as having a leading role and to place approximately 2.5 kilograms of cocaine between harm categories 1 and 2. The proposed appeal was neither reasonably arguable nor capable of showing a sentence that was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2020] EWCA Crim 482, the court allowed Casey’s appeal against conviction and dismissed the remaining conviction appeals. It dismissed Anderson’s applications concerning sentence.
• Crown Court at Teesside — Before Her Honour Judge Sherwin, the appellants were convicted on 18 December 2018 of conspiracy to supply cocaine. They were sentenced on 29 January 2019.