R v Lorenc Mardeda

In sentencing for linked drug offences, the court may treat the most serious offence as the lead offence and impose a total sentence that reflects the additional criminality of the remaining counts. A sentence within the applicable guideline range for the lead offence, followed by a proportionate uplift for associated offending, will not be manifestly excessive where it reflects the offender’s knowing and deep involvement in an industrial-scale operation.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Reading Crown Court to production of cannabis and was convicted after trial of conspiracies to produce and to supply cannabis. He was acquitted of a money-laundering conspiracy.

The sentencing judge treated the conspiracy to produce cannabis as the lead offence. He assessed the applicant as having a significant role in a category 1, industrial-scale operation, imposed seven years’ custody for that offence, and reached a total of eight years’ imprisonment after reflecting the further conspiracy and production offences.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that the total sentence was manifestly excessive because his managerial activities did not justify treating him as if he had held a leading role.

1. Renewed application refused. There was no arguable basis for granting leave to appeal against the total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.
2. The sentencing judge was particularly well placed to assess the applicant’s role. He had presided over the applicant’s trial and over proceedings involving other conspirators in the same criminal group.
3. The evidence entitled the judge to find that the applicant understood the scale of the operation and was deeply involved in it. Although sentenced as having a significant role, the evidence could have supported a leading-role assessment.
4. The conspiracy to produce cannabis was properly treated as the lead offence. Its industrial scale and the applicant’s role justified a notional sentence at the top of the applicable range, namely towards seven years’ custody.
5. The judge then had to reflect the additional criminality of the supply conspiracy and the substantive production offence. After allowing for mitigation, the eight-year total was just and proportionate. It was neither manifestly excessive nor arguably so.
6. The court declined to make a loss of time order, given the cogent submissions advanced for the applicant.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused in [2023] EWCA Crim 310.
• Crown Court at Reading: On 30 September 2022, the applicant received a total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment after convictions for conspiracies to produce and supply cannabis, and a guilty plea to production of cannabis.