R v Tiago Thomas De-Lima

Sentencing guidelines are a framework for comparing the offending with the guideline categories, but they may be exceeded in exceptional cases. A sentence above 20 years may be justified where a drug operation is exceptionally serious in its organisation, commerciality, marketing, branding, duration and scale, particularly where quantities greatly exceed the highest guideline category. The court should assess the totality of multiple conspiracies rather than treating the guideline for a single offence as determinative. On an appeal against sentence, the essential question is whether the resulting sentence is manifestly excessive. Maximum credit for a guilty plea is reserved for the earliest stage; a lesser discount may be appropriate where the plea was not entered promptly.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Southwark to nine offences, including conspiracies to supply class A and class B drugs, conspiracy to acquire criminal property and driving whilst disqualified. He was sentenced to a total of 18 years’ imprisonment.

He renewed an application for permission to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge. He also sought an extension of nine days for renewing the application. The grounds challenged the sentence’s departure from the sentencing guidelines, the starting point, guilty plea credit, mitigation, remand restrictions and trial savings. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether time should be extended.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for permission to appeal and the application for an extension of time were both refused.
2. The purpose of sentencing guidelines is to compare the facts of the offending with the guideline categories. Guidelines are ordinarily framed for a single offence. In a case involving several drug conspiracies, the court must consider the overall offending and the combined scale of the criminality.
3. The guidelines contemplated sentences of 20 years and above where an operation was conducted on the most serious and commercial scale, involved quantities significantly exceeding category 1, and depended on the offender’s role. This was a rare case in which departure from the guideline range, and a substantial departure, was justified. Relevant features included the applicant’s leadership of the organised crime group, the wholesale and retail structure, commerciality, marketing, branding, duration and very high quantities of drugs.
4. The sentencing judge had given proper guilty plea credit. The maximum reduction of one-third was reserved for a plea at the earliest stage, whereas the applicant had not pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. A 25 per cent reduction was therefore permissible.
5. The absence of a separately identified reduction for personal mitigation did not establish an error. The judge had considered the mitigating factors, medical evidence and personal circumstances. He had also made no separately identified uplift for the previous convictions or the community order, and had considered the effect of the pandemic.
6. The sole question on the sentence appeal was whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive. It was not. The court agreed with the single judge’s detailed reasons and had nothing useful to add. Although a short administrative delay might justify an extension of time where an application had arguable merit, no extension was required where the substantive application had no such merit.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence and refused the application for an extension of time.
2. Single judge: refused the applicant’s initial application for permission to appeal.
3. Crown Court at Southwark: sentenced the applicant on 14 October 2021 to a total of 18 years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.