R v Darren Joseph Midgley

On an appeal against sentence, the issue is whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. In a most serious, commercial-scale drug operation involving a quantity significantly above Category 1, a sentence of 20 years or more may be appropriate, depending on the offender’s role. A leading role, the quantity supplied and participation in a wider conspiracy may justify moving outside the guideline range. Fresh psychological evidence should not be admitted where, even at its highest, it could not provide an arguable ground for allowing the appeal. A 15-year sentence, following the appropriate guilty plea discount from 20 years, was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to conspiracy to supply cocaine and received a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence and sought to amend his notice of appeal. He alleged that previous lawyers had pressured him into an inaccurate basis of plea and had failed to identify cognitive difficulties. He also sought to adduce a psychological report and argued that, even on the existing material, his role and sentence had been assessed incorrectly. The central issues were whether the fresh evidence should be admitted and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Application refused. The court refused leave to amend the notice of appeal and refused leave to appeal.

1. Fresh evidence. There was no evidence supporting the allegations of inadequate service by the previous solicitors and counsel. Counsel’s response was accepted, and the amended basis of plea indicated that care had been taken to record the applicant’s instructions accurately. The psychological report identified learning difficulties and an IQ of 69, but did not establish cognitive or psychological barriers preventing the applicant from explaining what he had done. Even taken at its highest, the report could not provide an arguable ground for allowing the appeal, so there was no good reason to admit it.
2. Basis of plea and attribution. The applicant could have advanced before sentence the account that he did not own the EncroChat handle or was not its primary user. The evidence attributing the device to him was compelling, and there was no reason to suppose that it had been used by more than one person.
3. Sentence. The relevant appellate question was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The sentencing guideline permitted sentences of 20 years and above for operations on the most serious and commercial scale involving quantities significantly above Category 1, depending on the offender’s role. The Recorder was entitled to find that the applicant had a leading role. Given the quantity supplied and his part in the conspiracy, he was entitled to sentence outside the category range and to impose 20 years before credit for the guilty plea. The 25 per cent reduction produced the 15-year sentence, which was not open to criticism.
4. The principle that participation in a wider conspiracy increases the seriousness of offending was referred to through R v Khan [2013] EWCA Crim 80 at paragraph 35.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused, and leave to amend the notice of appeal was refused: [2023] EWCA Crim 1635.
• Crown Court at Manchester Following a guilty plea, the applicant was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply cocaine.