R v Zach Hall & Anor

Where sentencing remarks do not explain how mitigation and aggravation affected the notional sentence, the appellate court may conduct the sentencing exercise afresh. The appeal nevertheless fails if the resulting sentence is not manifestly excessive.

For a participant in a drug-supply conspiracy, harm may reflect the scale of the conspiracy joined, while culpability depends upon that participant’s role, financial expectation and awareness of the operation. A disparity argument succeeds only where the difference in sentences would lead informed and right-minded observers to conclude that something has gone wrong in the administration of justice.

The appellants pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The conspiracy involved kilogram quantities of cocaine. One appellant managed day-to-day operations for the organised crime group. The other bought substantial quantities for onward supply.

On 24 March 2023, they received sentences of nine years and four months’ imprisonment and six years’ imprisonment respectively. Each appealed with leave of the single judge. They contended that the recorder had failed to allow adequately for mitigation and custody conditions, and that the sentences were excessive. One appellant also relied on alleged unjustified disparity with the sentence imposed on a more senior co-accused.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The recorder erred by giving little explanation of how he had reached the notional sentences after trial and by not referring, save to a limited extent, to aggravating and mitigating factors. That omission reasonably raised concern that mitigation had not been taken into account. The court therefore conducted the sentencing exercise afresh.

2. For Hall, Category 1 harm and a significant role were correct. He performed an operational and management function, directed others, expected substantial advantage, understood the scale of the operation, and played a pivotal part in it. Although the cocaine seized was below the guideline’s indicative quantity, the evidence showed that the conspiracy involved more drugs. A sentence after trial in the region of 12 years was appropriate. A reduction of 12 months for mitigation and custody conditions was generous, leaving the recorder’s notional sentence of 11 years and the final sentence of nine years and four months sound.

3. For Cranston, Category 1 harm properly reflected the substantial conspiracy to which he was a party. His expectation of significant financial advantage and awareness of the operation supported a significant-role categorisation, although his role was less prominent. Nine years after trial, at the bottom of the applicable range, was appropriate. His prior drug-dealing conviction required a considerable upward adjustment, but that was balanced by mitigation and prison conditions. Applying one-third credit for his plea produced the proper sentence of six years.

4. There was no sentencing disparity meeting the test in Crown v. Rudd [2017] EWCA (Crim.) 2446. Even if the more senior co-accused had received a favourable sentence, that did not make either appellant’s sentence manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appellants’ sentence appeals were dismissed: [2023] EWCA Crim 1167.
• Crown Court at Manchester — On 24 March 2023, Hall was sentenced to nine years and four months’ imprisonment and Cranston to six years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.