R v Mark Hobbs & Anor

A sentencing court must follow the relevant offence-specific guideline unless it is satisfied that doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. An offender convicted of a drugs conspiracy must ordinarily be sentenced under the applicable drugs guideline, even where the offender’s function principally involved handling or moving the proceeds of drug dealing.

Role under the drugs guideline is assessed by balancing the relevant leading, significant and lesser-role characteristics. Appellate intervention in a sentencing judge’s factual assessment of role requires a justiciable error, such as inconsistency, lack of evidential basis, conflict with uncontroverted evidence or irrationality. Where drug quantity greatly exceeds the highest harm category, the sentence may be increased beyond the guideline range while preserving proportionality and reflecting the offender’s actual role.

The Solicitor General applied under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient the sentences imposed on Mark Hobbs and John William Anderson for their participation in the same conspiracy to supply 175 kilograms of cocaine.

At Guildford Crown Court, Hobbs received three years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy and a consecutive two years and three months for a separate offence of being concerned in the supply of cocaine, making five years and three months. Anderson received eight years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy after a guilty plea.

The reference raised the proper guideline, the offenders’ respective roles, the uplift for an exceptionally large quantity of cocaine, and whether either sentence was unduly lenient.

1. The reference succeeded as to Hobbs. The court granted leave and increased his total sentence from five years and three months to 10 years’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge was entitled to classify Hobbs as having a lesser role. Although Hobbs had an operational function and some understanding of the scale of the conspiracy, he performed a limited function under direction, had no influence above him, and expected only limited financial advantage.

2. The judge nevertheless erred by assessing the conspiracy under the money-laundering guideline. Section 59(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 required use of the relevant offence-specific drugs guideline unless departure would be contrary to the interests of justice. No such finding was made and the evidence supplied no basis for one. Hobbs’s handling and delivery of drug proceeds did not alter the offence for which he had been convicted.

3. Applying the drugs guideline, the court adopted the seven-year starting point for a lesser-role, category-1 offence. It increased this to nine years to reflect the exceptionally large quantity of cocaine, while maintaining proportionality by reference to Hobbs’s actual role. It then reduced the sentence to seven years and nine months for mitigation. The consecutive sentence of two years and three months for the separate supply offence was left undisturbed, producing the total of 10 years.

4. The reference failed as to Anderson. The court found no justiciable basis to disturb the sentencing judge’s conclusion that Anderson had a significant rather than leading role. Nor was there a basis to interfere with the four-year uplift for quantity or the mitigation reduction. The eight-year sentence was generous and lenient, but not unduly lenient. Leave to make the reference was granted, but the reference was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court increased Hobbs’ sentence and refused the reference concerning Anderson: [2023] EWCA Crim 938.
• Crown Court at Guildford: On 3 March 2023 Hobbs was sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment in total. On 24 April 2023 Anderson was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for the same cocaine conspiracy.