R v Endri Kostreni & Anor

For sentencing a defendant convicted of a drugs conspiracy, harm is not confined to the quantity of drugs with which that defendant was directly involved. The court may assess the scale of the conspiracy as a whole, including its demonstrated intended scope.

Consecutive sentences may be appropriate under the totality guideline where offences are distinct and require separate recognition, or where concurrent terms would not adequately reflect the overall criminality. An application to add a fresh ground of appeal is assessed by the factors identified in R v James & Others [2018] EWCA Crim 285, including the interests of justice.

These were renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence. Endri Kostreni was convicted after trial in the Crown Court at Bournemouth of conspiracy to supply cocaine and production of cannabis. Ardit Zani pleaded guilty to the cocaine conspiracy on the first day of trial. Each received eight years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy; Kostreni received a consecutive two-year term for the cannabis offence.

The prosecution concerned an organised group supplying cocaine. The sentencing judge found that the conspiracy involved about three kilograms of cocaine and that both appellants had substantial roles. Kostreni challenged the assessment of culpability and harm, and the consecutive sentence. Zani challenged the finding that he had a leading role and sought to add a ground concerning his health and the effects of Covid restrictions in custody.

1. All applications were refused. The sentencing judge had conducted the relevant trials and was well placed to assess the evidence, the appellants’ culpability and the harm caused by the conspiracy.

2. Kostreni’s role was properly treated as very significant. The evidence showed that he assisted in operating the supply chain, directed other dealers, understood the scale of the enterprise and expected financial advantage. In a conspiracy case, harm was not limited to drugs with which he was directly involved. The judge was entitled to find, conservatively, that the conspiracy involved about three kilograms of cocaine and to select a nine-year starting point before mitigation.

3. The consecutive two-year sentence for cannabis production was lawful. Although it overlapped in time with the cocaine conspiracy, it concerned a different drug, Kostreni alone was charged with it, and he had directed another participant. Under the Sentencing Guidelines on Totality, the offences were distinct and concurrent terms would not sufficiently reflect the overall criminality.

4. Zani’s leading role, the scale and duration of the conspiracy justified a 12-year starting point. His 25% credit for plea and a further reduction for his medical condition and Covid-related custody conditions produced an eight-year sentence that was not manifestly excessive. The court refused permission to add the new ground, applying R v James & Others [2018] EWCA Crim 285: the matters were known to previous counsel, no adequate reason for delay was shown, and the proposed ground lacked merit.

5. Applying R v Bristowe [2019] EWCA Crim 2005, the court found no exceptional circumstances requiring a victim surcharge, imposed before confiscation proceedings concluded, to be quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence, and Zani’s application to add a ground, were refused in [2022] EWCA Crim 1437.
• Crown Court at Bournemouth: Zani pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply cocaine on 1 June 2021. Kostreni was convicted after trial on 3 December 2021 of conspiracy to supply cocaine and production of cannabis. Each received eight years for the conspiracy; Kostreni received a consecutive two-year term for cannabis production.