R v Mark Guri

In an appeal against sentence, the assessment must reflect the guideline category, drug quantity, offender’s role and all relevant mitigation before guilty-plea credit. For a courier with a significant role in transporting seven kilograms of cannabis, an appropriate Category 3 starting point was 12 months, with only a modest increase to 13–14 months for quantity before mitigation. Lack of previous convictions in the country may carry limited weight where the offender has been present only briefly and entered illegally. Evidence that the offender acted under pressure or coercion is nevertheless mitigating. A sentence materially above that assessment may be manifestly excessive and should be quashed and replaced with the proportionate sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Chester to possession of seven kilograms of cannabis with intent, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and to driving without insurance. The judge assessed the offence as Category 3 with a significant role, moved the 12-month starting point to 20 months, and imposed 15 months’ imprisonment after 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that insufficient weight had been given to his lack of previous convictions, and that pressure or coercion had not been reflected. The central issue was the proper sentence after assessing the quantity, role and mitigation.

Appeal allowed. The sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment was quashed and a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment substituted.

1. The court upheld the assessment that the appellant had a significant role. He had some awareness of the scale of the operation, had seen the drugs, and was trusted to courier a large quantity of drugs and money.
2. Applying the Drug Offences Guideline, the appropriate starting point was 12 months’ imprisonment. The increase from six to seven kilograms justified only a modest uplift, producing a figure of 13 to 14 months before mitigation and credit. The increase to 20 months was excessive.
3. The lack of previous convictions in the country had limited mitigating value because the appellant had entered illegally and had been present only briefly. However, the evidence that he had acted under a degree of coercion was a mitigating factor and required a downward adjustment.
4. The appropriate sentence at trial was 12 months’ imprisonment. Applying 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea produced nine months. The sentence imposed was therefore manifestly excessive.

• Crown Court at Chester: On 4 March 2024, the appellant was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to possession of cannabis with intent and driving without insurance.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The sentence was quashed as manifestly excessive and nine months’ imprisonment was substituted: [2024] EWCA Crim 1208.