R v Piotr Wojciechowski

Where a sentencing guideline applies, previous sentences are not usually reliable factual comparators. Other cases should be cited for points of principle rather than as examples, because factual and procedural differences make direct comparison unreliable.

In assessing a significant role in drug trafficking, relevant indicators include significant financial gain, awareness of the operation’s scale and an operational or management function. A quantity substantially above the guideline’s category 1 indicator may justify a major uplift, assessed alongside the offender’s role. A sentence imposed squarely in accordance with the guideline and principle is not manifestly excessive merely because other cases produced different sentences.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames, the applicant was convicted of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and possessing criminal property. He was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on the conspiracy count, with a concurrent two-year sentence on the second count.

The single judge refused an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence. On renewal, the applicant argued that the starting point should have been nine rather than 10 years and that the uplift to 15 years was unjustified. He relied on R v Lewis [2012] EWCA Crim 1414 and R v Clarke [2023] EWCA Crim 933 as comparators. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether an extension of time should be granted.

The renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

1. Role. The applicant was properly treated as having a significant role. He was not merely a delivery driver: he imported the drugs using the cloak of legitimate employment, expected and received significant financial gain, understood the scale of the operation, and had an operational or management function. He participated in decisions about drop-off locations and used coded communications, unregistered phones and a password to avoid detection. The guideline starting point for a significant role was 10 years, within a range of nine to 12 years. A lower starting point was not arguable.
2. Quantity. The guideline contemplated sentences of 20 years or more where the operation was on the most serious and commercial scale and the quantity was significantly higher than category 1, depending on the offender’s role. The 32 kilograms of cocaine was significantly above the indicative category 1 quantity of five kilograms. The uplift from 10 to 15 years reflected the applicant’s significant rather than leading role and was not manifestly excessive.
3. Comparators. Where a sentencing guideline applies, previous cases should not ordinarily be used as factual comparators. They should be cited for points of principle, not example. The outcome of an earlier appeal or Attorney General’s Reference does not prevent a higher sentence on different facts from being lawful. The court was not persuaded by R v Lewis [2012] EWCA Crim 1414 or R v Clarke [2023] EWCA Crim 933.
4. Extension of time. The proposed appeal lacked merit. It was therefore inappropriate to grant an extension of time. The application was also weak on its face because the applicant had not instructed new solicitors to advise on an appeal until after the time limit had expired.

• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: Following conviction after trial, the applicant was sentenced on 19 May 2023 to 15 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and two concurrent years for possessing criminal property.
• Single judge: Refused the applicant’s applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2024] EWCA Crim 400: Refused the renewed applications.