Conteh & Anor, R. v

When sentencing following a guilty plea, the court must sentence on the accepted basis of plea. It cannot increase the sentence to reflect matters outside that basis. Where the accepted basis shows a limited function performed under direction and no financial gain, treating the defendant as having a significant role is an error and may make the sentence manifestly excessive. In county-lines conspiracies, separate possession offences may properly attract consecutive sentences where necessary to mark persistence and overall criminality, subject to totality. The personal introduction and exploitation of children is a grave aggravating factor capable of justifying a significant upward adjustment. A custodial sentence may also reflect the additional difficulties faced by prisoners during the pandemic.

Jamal Conteh sought an extension of time and permission to appeal against a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Chester for possession and conspiracy offences involving Class A drugs. Cheryl Hamand appealed, with limited leave, against concurrent sentences of 31 months for the same conspiracies. Conteh challenged the sentence’s starting point, the treatment of mitigation and the consecutive sentence for separate possession offences. Hamand contended that the judge had sentenced her on matters outside her accepted basis of plea and had wrongly treated her as having a significant rather than limited role. The central issues were the proper approach to the accepted basis of plea, role classification, totality and pandemic-related mitigation.

Conteh’s extension of time was granted, but his renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Hamand’s appeal was allowed and her sentences were quashed and substituted.

1. Conteh. The aggravating features of Conteh’s offending justified the sentence imposed for the conspiracies. The operation was well planned, organised and sustained for about a year, involved two Class A drugs and numerous participants, and Conteh personally introduced and exploited three children. That conduct was a grave aggravating factor which alone warranted a significant upward adjustment. His age, troubled background, prison progress and the difficulties faced by prisoners during the pandemic did not outweigh the aggravating features.
2. The judge was entitled to mark Conteh’s separate possession offences by imposing a consecutive sentence. The separate offences warranted recognition of the persistence and overall criminality involved, and the totality principle did not require a different result.
3. Hamand. Having accepted Hamand’s basis of plea, the judge was not entitled to sentence her on additional matters outside it. That basis showed that she acted under direction, allowed her home to be used to unplug drugs and made no financial gain. She should therefore have been sentenced on the basis of a limited role. Treating her as having a significant role was an error, and the sentence of 42 months before credit for plea was manifestly excessive.
4. The appropriate category 3 lesser-role starting point was three years, with a range of two years to four years and six months. Taking account of her limited previous convictions, mental-health difficulties, guilty plea and pandemic conditions, the court substituted 20 months’ immediate imprisonment on each count, concurrent. Suspension was refused because the seriousness of the offending required immediate custody. The reduction also reflected R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 28 April 2021, Conteh’s extension of time was granted but his renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. Hamand’s appeal against sentence was allowed and her concurrent sentences were reduced from 31 months to 20 months’ immediate imprisonment. [2021] EWCA Crim 670
• Crown Court at Chester: Conteh was sentenced on 14 December 2020 to a total of 12 years’ imprisonment. Hamand was sentenced to 31 months’ imprisonment concurrently on each conspiracy count.