R v Mark Christopher Eldridge

In assessing sentence for a leading role in a category 1 cocaine conspiracy, the extent to which the drug quantity exceeds the guideline benchmark is not a simple mathematical exercise. A substantial uplift may be justified by the commercial scale, sustained operation and direct links to the source of supply.

Where a sentence is varied after mitigation has been considered, an applicable guilty-plea reduction must still be given. A failure to pronounce a reduced varied sentence in public breaches the procedural rule, but does not of itself render that sentence a nullity.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Kingston to conspiracy to supply cocaine, conspiracy to acquire criminal property and possession of criminal property. He and a co-defendant had leading roles in a commercial cocaine conspiracy operating from March to June 2020.

The sentencing judge imposed 20 years’ imprisonment, later reducing it in chambers under the slip rule to 17½ years on the principal count. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the sentence was excessive and that the reduction failed to preserve his 20% guilty-plea credit.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court rejected the challenge to the seriousness of the principal sentence before credit for plea. The conspiracy was conducted at the highest commercial level. Although the proved quantity was corrected from more than 102 kilograms to 92 kilograms, that quantity over three months still greatly exceeded the category 1 leading-role guideline benchmark.

2. The degree by which harm exceeds the guideline benchmark is not determined by arithmetic alone. The scale of the operation, the appellant’s leading role, the commercial nature of the offending and the conspirators’ links to the original source of cocaine justified a substantial uplift. A sentence of 25 years after trial on count 1 was therefore not excessive.

3. The judge erred at the later hearing by reducing the sentence for mitigation but not applying the 20% credit for the appellant’s guilty plea. The varied term of 17½ years on count 1 had to be reduced by 20% to 14 years. The concurrent terms on counts 2 and 3 were correspondingly reduced to 53 months and six months.

4. Criminal Procedure Rule 28.4(2)(b) required the decision and reasons on the variation of sentence to be pronounced in public. The chambers hearing breached that requirement. Applying R v Cox [2019] EWCA Crim 71, the breach did not make the reduced sentence a nullity, particularly as the sentence had been reduced rather than increased.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of correcting the omitted guilty-plea reduction. The principal sentence was reduced to 14 years, with concurrent terms of 53 months and six months.

• Crown Court at Kingston: HHJ John sentenced the appellant on 25 January 2022. On 10 March 2022, the judge varied the sentences in chambers under section 385 of the Sentencing Act 2020.