Hughes & Anor, R v

In sentence appeals concerning a large and multi-defendant drugs conspiracy, the sentencing judge will ordinarily have a substantial advantage in assessing each offender’s role, responsibility and parity. An appellate court should intervene only where the sentence rests on an obvious factual mistake, an error of principle, or an assessment that no reasonable judge could have made.

A sentencing judge may reflect the wider criminal enterprise when sentencing an individual conspirator, even where that person’s direct involvement was limited, provided the judge remains faithful to the accepted basis of plea. A severe sentence is not thereby manifestly excessive.

Hughes and Powell appealed against concurrent sentences of four years and six months’ imprisonment imposed at the Crown Court at Mold for conspiracies to supply cocaine and heroin.

The offending formed part of a sophisticated county-lines organised crime group engaged in large-scale drug supply. Hughes admitted acting as a street-level dealer for about one month. Powell admitted two acts of assistance: purchasing a telephone top-up for the group’s principal drug line and driving a co-accused to Liverpool.

Both appellants contended that the sentencing judge had overstated their roles and imposed manifestly excessive sentences. The issue was whether the judge had made a factual or principled error warranting appellate intervention.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The court adopted the approach in R v Williams (Declan Craig) [2019] EWCA Crim 279. A sentencing judge who has dealt with numerous defendants in a substantial drug conspiracy has a material advantage in understanding the enterprise, differentiating roles and maintaining parity. Intervention is ordinarily justified only by an obvious factual mistake, an error of principle, or an evaluative conclusion that no reasonable judge could have reached.

2. The judge had conducted a three-day sentencing exercise and had an in-depth understanding of the conspiracy and all 18 co-accused. The Court of Appeal found no established error of fact or principle in his assessment of either appellant.

3. Hughes was not merely an end-of-line street dealer. The judge was entitled to take account of his close connection with a co-accused, his importance as a contact for the principal telephone line, his role in two class A drug conspiracies, and his previous convictions. The judge had remained faithful to Hughes’s basis of plea, including the short duration of his involvement, and had allowed 25 per cent credit for his guilty plea.

4. Powell’s direct involvement was limited to two admitted instances, but purchasing a top-up for the critical telephone line assisted the organised crime group. His status as one of the line’s leading contacts, his connection with a senior participant, and his offending record entitled the judge to assess his conduct within the wider conspiracy. The judge had honoured Powell’s basis of plea and had generously allowed 10 per cent credit despite a guilty plea entered after trial had begun.

5. Although both sentences were severe, neither was manifestly excessive. The concurrent sentences therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2021] EWCA Crim 477, dismissed both appeals against sentence.
• Crown Court at Mold: On 11 September 2020, imposed concurrent sentences of four years and six months’ imprisonment on each appellant for conspiracies to supply cocaine and heroin.