R v Cornelius Corrigan

In sentencing for conspiracy to import class A drugs, a sentencing judge may adjust upwards from the guideline starting point to reflect culpability and may make a further adjustment outside the category range for the quantity involved. In a disparity challenge, the question is whether right-thinking members of the public, knowing the relevant facts and circumstances, would consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice. That is a high threshold. The assessment must consider the overall conspiracy, individual roles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and individual circumstances. Alleged factual errors do not justify appellate interference unless they materially bear on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lincoln to conspiracy to fraudulently evade a prohibition on importing class A drugs, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. On 12 May 2023, His Honour Judge Hirst sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge. He argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate compared with those imposed on co-conspirators, that the sentencing judge had adopted an erroneous approach to adjustments and that factual errors had affected the assessment of his role and involvement.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
2. Guideline approach. The sentencing judge was entitled to identify a significant role, starting from 10 years’ custody, make an upward adjustment within the category range for culpability, and make a further significant adjustment outside that range to reflect the quantity of drugs involved. The judge was also entitled to regard the applicant’s use of his innocent adult children to receive packages as a serious aggravating factor. The resulting 14-year sentence, reduced by 14 per cent for the belated guilty plea, was lawful in approach.
3. Disparity. The relevant question, applying R v Balfour Beatty [2007] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 65, was whether informed right-thinking members of the public would consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice. That was a high test. The judge had considered the conspiracy as a whole, the hierarchy, each individual role, the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the individual circumstances of all 10 defendants. Even assuming that Warman’s conduct had given greater impetus to the conspiracy, the threshold was not met.
4. Factual errors. Alleged errors concerning hired cars, meetings and the number of deliveries had no material bearing on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. There was no proper challenge to the finding that the applicant had a significant role in a sophisticated and well-organised conspiracy. No arguable ground for interference was established.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 13 March 2024, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. [2024] EWCA Crim 328
• Single judge: Refused the initial application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Lincoln: On 12 May 2023, His Honour Judge Hirst sentenced the applicant to 12 years’ imprisonment following his guilty plea.