R v Redi Gjoni

Where separate drug offences cause separate harm, concurrent sentences may be appropriate, but the lead sentence must be adjusted if concurrency alone fails to reflect the total criminality. There is no inflexible rule requiring consecutive sentences. The court must apply totality and ensure that the final sentence is proportionate.

In assessing drug offending, relevant considerations include quantity, role and seniority, geographical scope, duration and the number of conspiracies. Where quantity greatly exceeds the guideline category, a substantial uplift may be appropriate. Individual sentencing decisions provide limited assistance because their outcomes depend on their own facts.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer a sentence imposed on the respondent after guilty pleas to two cocaine offences. The offences involved 46 kg of cocaine in 2020 and approximately 11 kg in 2022, separated by more than two years and an intervening period of lawful study and employment.

The sentencing judge imposed nine years on count 1 and seven years and six months concurrently on count 2. The central issue was whether concurrency adequately reflected the separate criminality and harm arising from count 2.

The court granted leave and allowed the reference in part. The sentence on count 1 was increased from nine years to 13 years and six months. The sentence on count 2 remained seven years and six months, concurrent, producing an overall sentence of 13 years and six months.

1. Sentencing framework. Both counts fell within harm category 1, based on five kilograms of cocaine. For a significant role, the guideline starting point was 10 years, with a range of nine to 12 years. Where an operation is on the most serious and commercial scale and the quantity significantly exceeds category 1, sentences of 20 years or more may be appropriate, depending on role.
2. Relevant factors. Sentencing for a drug conspiracy must reflect both the amount supplied and the intended amount. Relevant factors include quantity, role, seniority in the chain, geographical scope, duration and the number of conspiracies. The need to uplift sentences for quantity was recognised in R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 600; [2018] 2 Cr App R (S) 18. The broader factors were identified in R v Greenfield [2020] EWCA Crim 459; [2020] 2 Cr App R (S) 19. Individual sentencing decisions, including R v Costi [2023] EWCA Crim 235 and R v Clarke [2023] EWCA Crim 933, provide limited assistance because each turns on its own quantity, role and mitigation.
3. Totality. There is no inflexible rule requiring consecutive or concurrent sentences. The court was entitled to make count 1 the lead offence and count 2 concurrent. However, count 2 involved separate offending and separate harm involving 11 kg of cocaine. Concurrency alone therefore failed to reflect the overall criminality, and an upward adjustment to count 1 was required. The increase of four years and six months was the lowest proportionate adjustment.

1. Croydon Crown Court: On 5 October 2023, the respondent was sentenced to nine years on count 1 and seven years and six months concurrently on count 2.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was allowed in part: the sentence on count 1 was increased to 13 years and six months, with count 2 remaining concurrent. [2023] EWCA Crim 1634