Robinson, R. v

A sentencing judge may assess drug-conspiracy harm by reference to the period of the admitted conspiracy, rather than only the days on which police observed the offender operating. Consecutive sentences for separate drug-supply offences may be imposed where justified, provided the judge expressly applies the principle of totality. An appeal against sentence will not be permitted where the asserted factual error is unfounded and the overall sentence is not arguably manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty before the magistrates to seven offences of supplying a Class A controlled drug. He was committed for sentence under section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. He later pleaded guilty at Chester Crown Court to two offences of conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug.

On 29 August 2019, the Crown Court imposed concurrent six-year sentences for the conspiracies and concurrent three-year sentences for the supply offences, with the latter consecutive to the former, making nine years’ imprisonment. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal sentence, with a short application to extend time. He alleged that the judge had wrongly treated him as involved in 221 days of dealing and had insufficiently applied totality.

1. The court refused the short extension of time and dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The application disclosed no arguable basis for concluding that the nine-year total sentence was manifestly excessive.

2. There was no factual error in the sentencing judge’s assessment. The 130-day period identified by the applicant was the period on which police had seen him operating. The 221-day period was the period during which the drug-supply team had operated in the conspiracy. The applicant’s own basis of plea admitted involvement in that conspiracy between June 2018 and January 2019.

3. The judge was entitled to use the lowest daily quantity admitted by the applicant, five grams, when assessing the scale of the conspiracy. That assessment supported the Category 2 classification adopted at sentence. The judge had also considered the applicant’s role, culpability, harm, addiction and relevant previous convictions.

4. Consecutive sentences were permissible for the conspiracy and substantive supply offences. The sentencing judge had expressly applied totality, including by making the seven supply sentences concurrent with one another. There was therefore no arguable error in the approach to totality or in the resulting overall sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed; short extension of time refused.
• Crown Court at Chester: on 29 August 2019, imposed concurrent six-year sentences for two conspiracies to supply a Class A controlled drug and concurrent three-year sentences for seven supply offences, consecutive to the conspiracy sentences.
• Magistrates’ Court: following guilty pleas to seven supply offences, committed the applicant for sentence under section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.