R v Tom Greenfield

When sentencing a conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, the guideline for supplying or offering to supply may be relevant. The sentencing judge may assess the offender’s role by reference to the guideline ranges and reflect the offender’s overall criminality across related counts. The use of encrypted communications in drug dealing may be treated as an aggravating feature. Old or limited antecedents must be considered in mitigation, but do not automatically require a lower starting point. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused where it is not reasonably arguable that the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Woolwich to conspiracies to supply cocaine, supply cannabis and transfer criminal property. On 13 March 2023, he received a total sentence of 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, comprising an 11-year and 3-month sentence for the cocaine conspiracy, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.

He sought leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that the starting point for the cocaine conspiracy was excessive, that the two-year uplift for use of EncroChat was excessive, and that his limited and old antecedents had not been properly reflected. A single judge refused leave. The renewed application concerned whether any of those grounds was reasonably arguable.

Disposition. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The total sentence of 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment was not reasonably arguable as manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Guideline and role. Although the offences involved conspiracies rather than substantive supply offences, the Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline on supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug was relevant. The cocaine conspiracy involved 5 kilograms of cocaine, engaging category 1 harm. The Recorder was entitled to place the applicant at the bottom end of the leading-role range and the top end of the significant-role range, and could not be faulted for adopting a 13-year starting point.
2. Overall criminality. The sentencing judge was entitled in principle to increase the notional sentence on count 1 to reflect the applicant’s overall criminality, including the related cannabis and criminal-property conspiracies. The applicant accepted that the additional offending could properly be reflected in the sentence, at least in relation to count 2.
3. Encrypted communications. The use of the EncroChat encrypted messaging service was plainly an aggravating feature of the offending. The two-year upward adjustment on count 1 was not manifestly excessive. The absence of a similar uplift on count 2 did not alter that conclusion.
4. Antecedents and pre-sentence report. The sentencing court had regard to the mitigation advanced on the applicant’s behalf, which included his limited antecedents. The Court confirmed that a pre-sentence report was not necessary in this case under section 33 of the Sentencing Act 2020 or the Sentencing Code.
5. Guilty plea and final sentence. No complaint was made about the 25 per cent reduction for the guilty pleas. Having regard to the applicant’s overall offending, the single judge was correct to conclude that an appeal was not reasonably arguable.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 26 October 2023, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2023] EWCA Crim 1294.
2. Single judge — Leave to appeal was refused on the basis that the grounds were not reasonably arguable.
3. Crown Court at Woolwich — On 13 March 2023, the applicant was sentenced to 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to three offences.