R v Miles Cracknell

For a no-case submission, the judge assesses the prosecution evidence at its highest and asks whether a properly directed reasonable jury could infer guilt. Reliability challenges, including challenges to telephone data, do not require withdrawal of the case where the evidence as a whole could support conviction. Under gateway D, a previous conviction for wholesale drug supply may be relevant to whether current associations arise from criminal participation rather than innocent conduct. In sentencing, the trial judge is best placed to assess the offender’s role after hearing the evidence. Consecutive sentences for distinct conspiracies are permissible, subject to totality and proportionality. The renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused.

On 25 May 2023, the applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Winchester of conspiracies to supply cocaine and cannabis and of possessing criminal property. He received consecutive custodial sentences totalling 18.5 years, with a concurrent sentence for the possession offence. A single judge refused leave to appeal.

On renewal, the applicant challenged the dismissal of his no-case submission, the admission of a previous conviction for conspiracy to supply cannabis, the assessment of his role as leading, the sentence for the cocaine conspiracy, and the imposition of consecutive sentences. The central issues were whether the evidence was sufficient for a properly directed jury, whether the previous conviction was relevant, and whether the overall sentence was excessive.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

1. No case to answer. The applicable question was whether, taking the prosecution case at its highest, there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could infer guilt. The judge was entitled to consider sustained cross-examination, expert checking of the telephone schedules and the multiple links between the applicant, co-conspirators, telephones and locations. The evidence had to be considered as a whole. Some links might be tenuous, but the judge was entitled to leave the case to the jury because there was evidence capable of supporting a conviction. The approach was consistent with R v Wassab Khan [2013] EWCA Crim 1345. There was no arguable error.
2. Bad character evidence. The previous conviction for cannabis supply was relevant under gateway D to the important issue whether the applicant was involved in the current drug-supply conspiracies. In the context of wholesale drug supply, the conviction could make it more likely that established connections resulted from participation in the conspiracies rather than innocent conduct. The court accepted the trial judge’s reliance on R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824. The renewed ground was not arguable.
3. Role and sentence. The judge who heard the evidence was best placed to assess the applicant’s role. The finding that he performed a leading role was amply supported. The sentence for the cocaine conspiracy was within the applicable guideline framework and justified by the quantity, previous conviction and other aggravating features.
4. Totality. A consecutive sentence was permissible because the conspiracies involved some different parties and different drugs. The decisive question was whether the total sentence was just and proportionate. The judge addressed totality by reducing the sentence for the cannabis conspiracy, and the resulting total custodial period was appropriate. Leave to appeal against sentence was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 1437.
• Court of Appeal (single judge) — refused leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Winchester — convicted the applicant on three offences and imposed a total custodial sentence of 18.5 years.