R v Jordan Joseph Gabriel

Indicative drug-quantity figures in a sentencing guideline are not thresholds. They are broad indicators of harm which assist the sentencing judge to place the offending in its proper context. Where separate supplies of different class A drugs form one conspiracy, their quantities may properly be assessed globally.

An offender may have a leading role although a co-conspirator occupies a higher position in the supply chain. The court must assess the offender’s own control of commercial supply, links to the supply chain and anticipated financial gain. A tactical decision to defer guilty pleas does not require enhanced credit. Fresh expert evidence which could readily have been obtained below, and would disclose no arguable sentencing error, will not assist an appeal under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to conspiracies to possess a prohibited weapon and to supply cocaine and heroin. The conspiracies lasted four months and involved wholesale quantities of class A drugs. He received a total sentence of 13 years and six months’ imprisonment.

After a single judge refused leave, he renewed his application to appeal against sentence in the Court of Appeal. He contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the guilty-plea credit was insufficient and the drug conspiracies should have been placed in category 2 rather than category 1. He also sought to adduce a post-sentence drug-expert report under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

Disposition

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the applicant had a leading role in the drug conspiracies. Although he was below his co-conspirator in the supply chain, he independently wholesaled and distributed drugs, broke down larger quantities for onward supply, brokered substantial quantities and directed commercial transactions. The judge had made an appropriate distinction between their respective roles.

3. The judge was also entitled to treat the drug offending as category 1. The applicant was directly associated with at least 4.2 kilograms of cocaine and heroin in what was, in reality, a single conspiracy. The guideline’s indicative quantity figures are broad indicators of harm, not thresholds. The evidence of kilo, half-kilo and multi-ounce transactions, together with substantial cash movement, supported the categorisation.

4. The proposed expert report did not assist. It could readily have been obtained and adduced at sentence if considered necessary. Counsel’s failure to obtain it did not provide a reasonable explanation for non-adduction. In any event, even with the report, the court identified no arguable error in the sentencing judge’s assessments under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

5. There was no error in granting 15 per cent credit for the late pleas. Deferring pleas pending the EncroChat litigation was a tactical choice. The consecutive firearm sentence and the overall adjustment for totality were also proper.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2022] EWCA Crim 1255, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following the single judge’s refusal.

2. Crown Court at Manchester: The applicant pleaded guilty on 4 November 2021 and, on 14 December 2021, received a total sentence of 13 years and six months’ imprisonment.