R v Samuel Black

When concurrent sentences are imposed for several serious offences, the sentence on the lead count may reflect the additional criminality of the other counts, provided the resulting overall sentence satisfies totality. Substantial cannabis dealing and money laundering, especially laundering unconnected with the charged drug dealing, can justify a significant uplift to the sentence appropriate for cocaine dealing alone.

Evidence of weapons offending may demonstrate an offender’s leading role in a drugs enterprise without aggravating the drugs sentence twice. Separate weapons criminality may properly attract a consecutive sentence, subject to an appropriate totality reduction. Credit for a guilty plea is assessed in light of its timing, the realism of any basis of plea, and any resulting delay or disruption.

R v Samuel Black was a sentence appeal. The appellant had pleaded guilty to conspiracies to supply cocaine and cannabis, conspiracy to acquire criminal property, possession of criminal property, and conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited weapons.

On 9 October 2023, the Crown Court at Kingston Upon Thames imposed a total sentence of 21 years and six months’ imprisonment. The drugs and money-laundering sentences were concurrent. A sentence for the weapons conspiracy was consecutive.

The appellant contended that the lead sentence was excessive, that weapons evidence had been counted twice, that guilty-plea credit was inadequate, and that insufficient allowance had been made for totality. The central issue was whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 21 years and six months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
2. The appropriate sentence for the cocaine conspiracy alone was about 15 years after trial. The sentencing judge was entitled to impose a further four-year uplift on the lead count to reflect the separate cannabis conspiracy and money-laundering offending. The cannabis quantity was substantial. The money laundering exceeded £2 million and included more than £1 million handled for another organised crime group, rather than merely the proceeds necessarily associated with the cocaine conspiracy.
3. Although the sentencing judge’s remarks did not clearly articulate that calculation, the resulting 19-year sentence after trial on the lead count properly reflected all of the drugs and money-laundering offending and did not offend totality.
4. The weapons evidence was not double counted. It revealed that the appellant occupied a leading role in the drugs enterprise; it was not treated as an aggravating feature of the drugs offences. The weapons conspiracy also involved distinct criminality which required separate punishment. A consecutive sentence, reduced by more than two years for totality, was appropriate.
5. The 17½ per cent credit for guilty pleas was not inadequate. The pleas were entered shortly before trial, after earlier not-guilty pleas. The appellant had received legal advice and the offences were not legally complex. The unrealistic basis of plea and subsequent proposed matters requiring a Newton hearing caused further delay and disruption. The court considered the credit generous.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sentence appeal dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 1225.
• Crown Court at Kingston Upon Thames: On 9 October 2023, the appellant was sentenced by His Honour Judge Peter Lodder KC to a total of 21 years and six months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.