Daniels, R. v

A sentencing court may apply the controlled-drug guideline to a conspiracy to convey prohibited items into prison where agreement to supply a Class A drug is its most serious aspect. The prison context may justify a significant upward adjustment. A substantial sentence may remain warranted even where one parcel was specifically arranged and nothing was actually conveyed. A separate conspiracy may attract a consecutive term. The totality principle requires consideration of the overall sentence, but strong personal mitigation does not require reduction where the offending is well organised and seriously aggravated. An upward adjustment beyond the guideline range may reflect features amounting to a leading role.

The applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracies to supply cocaine and heroin and to convey a List A article into or out of prison. The Crown Court at Chester imposed concurrent six-year sentences for the drug conspiracies and a consecutive four-year sentence for the prison-related conspiracy, producing a total of 10 years’ imprisonment.

A single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant renewed the application, principally challenging the sentence for the prison-related conspiracy and relying on the limited specific arrangement, the absence of actual conveyance, totality and personal mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. For the drug conspiracies, the guideline placed a category 3 offence with a significant role at a starting point of four years and six months, with a range of three years and six months to seven years. The judge was entitled to adjust upwards beyond that range to reflect features amounting to a leading role.

2. The aggravating features were substantial. The conspiracies were well organised, operated for more than four months, involved two Class A drugs, extended across several regions, generated significant money and used violence to enforce drug debts. The applicant’s personal and family mitigation could not outweigh those factors. The six-year sentences after guilty-plea discount were not arguably manifestly excessive.

3. The prison-related conspiracy was separate and could properly attract a consecutive sentence. Although no guideline covered that offence, applying the controlled-drug guideline was permissible because the agreement to supply crack cocaine was its most serious aspect. The prison context was a serious aggravating factor justifying a significant upward adjustment.

4. Even without applying the guideline, a four-year sentence was warranted. The applicant had agreed to organise a supply of prohibited items, including Class A drugs, through a sophisticated operation involving telephones and bank accounts. The fact that the specific arrangement concerned one parcel and that nothing was actually brought into prison did not materially reduce the seriousness. Totality was taken into account, but the overall 10-year sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2021] EWCA Crim 665: dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Crown Court at Chester: following guilty pleas, imposed a total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, comprising concurrent six-year terms and a consecutive four-year term.