R v Daniel John McLoughlin

When sentencing for multiple offences, the court may adopt a starting point that reflects the offender’s total criminality rather than the lead count alone. A sentencing judge may assess the offender’s role by reference to the facts, even where an agreed basis of plea refers to equal roles, provided the assessment is not inconsistent with that agreement. A lower sentence for a co-defendant does not make the applicant’s sentence excessive where the co-defendant was less heavily convicted or pleaded guilty earlier. Relevant previous convictions, sophisticated efforts to avoid detection and a late guilty plea may materially affect sentence and reduction for plea.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Liverpool to dealing with goods with fraudulent intent and conspiracies to supply Class A and Class B drugs. He was sentenced to 14 years and four months’ imprisonment. His co-defendant received eight years.

After a single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant sought an extension of 14 days to renew his application. He challenged the offence categorisation, the assessment of his role compared with his co-defendant, and the overall starting point and sentence.

The application for an extension of time was refused and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. Sentencing basis. The judge was entitled to adopt a starting point significantly above that which would have been appropriate for the cocaine conspiracy alone. The sentence had to reflect the applicant’s total criminality, including the agreement concerning heroin, his leading role in the ketamine conspiracy and the exportation of ketamine to Australia. Considering the overall quantity and offending justified the approach to Category 1.
2. Role and parity. The judge was entitled to find that the applicant had a leading role. The conclusion that the drug operation was his business was supported by the facts and was not inconsistent with the resolution document. Garrity’s lower sentence did not make the applicant’s sentence excessive. Garrity had fewer convictions, pleaded guilty earlier and had previously been of good character. Any generosity shown to him did not provide a basis for reducing the applicant’s sentence.
3. Aggravation and plea. The judge was entitled to give substantial weight to the applicant’s relevant previous convictions and to the use of sophisticated communications to avoid detection. Those aggravating features outweighed the mitigation. The applicant pleaded guilty only after a jury had been sworn and discharged, so the 10 per cent reduction was generous.
4. No pre-sentence report was necessary at sentence or on the renewed application. The sentence was justified by the facts and was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1637, the application for an extension of time was refused and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: On 27 March 2024, HHJ Stuart Driver KC sentenced the applicant to 14 years and four months’ imprisonment following his guilty pleas.
• Single judge: Refused leave to appeal against sentence.