R v John Hassall

In sentencing drug offences, a broker may properly be treated as having a leading role where the evidence shows direction and organisation of commercial supply, substantial links and an expectation of substantial gain.

Where the quantity exceeds the indicative level for the highest harm category, an upward adjustment may be made. The fact that the offence is offering to supply rather than actual supply may justify a downward adjustment, without preventing the sentence remaining within the category range.

For multiple offences, the court may select a lead offence, increase its sentence to reflect the others and impose concurrent sentences, provided the overall sentence is just and proportionate.

The applicant was sentenced at the Crown Court at Liverpool for offering to supply cocaine, supplying heroin and offering to supply cannabis. The cocaine offence was treated as the lead offence and attracted a sentence of 12 years and six months, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

A single judge refused leave to appeal. The renewed application challenged the findings that the applicant had a leading role, that the cocaine offence fell within Category 1 harm, and that the sentence was excessive by comparison with sentences imposed on other offenders. The applicant also argued that the sentencing judge had mistakenly relied on a quantity of 18.25 kilograms rather than 8.25 kilograms.

1. Extension and leave. The court granted a 20-day extension of time because the applicant’s transfer between prisons may have prevented him receiving notice of the single judge’s refusal. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was then refused.
2. Role. The sentencing judge was entitled to find a leading role. The applicant acted as a broker, sourced cocaine from a supplier and offered it to others. The evidence supported findings that he directed and organised commercial-scale offers, had substantial links to others and expected substantial financial gain.
3. Harm and quantity. The indicative quantity for Category 1 cocaine offences was five kilograms. The minimum quantity of 8.25 kilograms therefore justified Category 1 harm, with a starting point of 14 years and a range extending to 16 years. An upward adjustment was justified because the quantity exceeded the indicative level. The judge was nevertheless entitled to remain within the category range because the offence involved offering to supply rather than actual supply, which warranted a small downward adjustment.
4. Sentencing remarks. The reference to 18.25 kilograms was a slip. Read fairly, as a whole and in context, the remarks showed that the judge understood the relevant quantity to be 8.25 kilograms and sentenced on that basis.
5. Totality and disparity. It was proper to take the cocaine offence as the lead offence, increase its sentence to reflect the heroin and cannabis offences, and make the sentences for those offences concurrent. The resulting sentence was just and proportionate. Comparisons with other offenders did not justify reduction because they had been sentenced by different judges on different evidence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court granted an extension of time but refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 274.
2. Single judge: Refused leave to appeal against sentence.
3. Crown Court at Liverpool: On 28 April 2023, sentenced the applicant to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for offering to supply cocaine, with concurrent sentences for the heroin and cannabis offences.