R v Paul Michael Mount & Ors

Where conspirators agree to produce or supply amphetamine designed for administration by injection, it is a class A drug. Its classification depends on that intended design, not on the final user’s method of consumption. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 supplies that classification; the greater indicative weight for amphetamine in the sentencing guideline accommodates its relative gravity compared with cocaine and heroin.

In an exceptionally large and commercial drugs conspiracy, a sentence may exceed the usual guideline range and the general 30-year ceiling identified in authority. The sentencing court may calibrate and bunch sentences among leading participants without a mathematical comparison. Personal mitigation and family circumstances normally have limited force in very serious professional drug offending.

Seven defendants were sentenced in the Crown Court at Liverpool on 12 August 2022 following convictions arising from large-scale conspiracies to produce and supply controlled drugs. The principal counts concerned amphetamine manufactured for administration by injection, alongside conspiracies involving non-injectable amphetamine and, for some defendants, cocaine and heroin.

Five defendants appealed sentences imposed on the injectable-amphetamine counts. They challenged the classification and quantity of the drug, the assessment of their roles, and, in one case, credit for guilty pleas. Two further defendants renewed applications for leave to appeal sentences on the cocaine-and-heroin conspiracy. The evidence principally comprised encrypted EncroChat messages and evidence concerning the drug-production operation.

1. Disposition. The Court dismissed the appeals of Mount, Saunderson, Owens, Hartley and Beeby. It refused Pope’s and Shearwood’s renewed applications for leave to appeal.
2. Injectable amphetamine. The conspiracies were agreements to manufacture and supply amphetamine designed for injection. That intention rendered the drug class A. The ultimate customer’s choice whether to inject it could not alter either the statutory classification or the conspirators’ culpability. The judge was entitled to use the 20-kilogram category 1 indicative weight for amphetamine, rather than the lower weights applicable to cocaine and heroin, to reflect the guideline’s differentiation between drugs.
3. Quantity and sentence. The sentencing judge had heard the evidence and was entitled to draw inferences from the EncroChat messages and recovered materials. His findings as to the quantities produced, planned and designed for injection disclosed no flaw or double counting. The scale was extraordinary. Applying R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 600, the Court held that the judge could exceed the general ceiling of about 30 years because the operation involved approximately three metric tonnes of class A amphetamine and substantial additional cocaine and heroin dealing.
4. Individual sentencing. Sentence calibration in a conspiracy of this size was not a mathematical exercise. Some bunching among leading participants was permissible despite differences in their roles. The judge was entitled to give Owens an overall reduction of about 14 per cent for late guilty pleas. Hartley’s lesser role, Beeby’s significant role, Pope’s position as a substantial broker, and Shearwood’s overall criminality were all properly assessed. Family circumstances, good character and similar matters had limited weight in offending of this gravity, consistently with R v Boakye [2012] EWCA Crim 838.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 461, dismissed five sentence appeals and refused two renewed applications for leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: On 12 August 2022, HHJ Denis Watson KC sentenced the defendants for drug conspiracies and associated offending.