R v Michael James Patrick Derrane

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence where the sentencing judge was entitled to adopt the starting points, assess culpability and harm, make proper allowance for mitigation and guilty pleas, and reduce the aggregate sentence for totality. A sentence remains proper where those assessments support the conclusion that it is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

There is no automatic entitlement to credit for time spent in custody following recall under a life licence which does not count towards a new sentence. The sentencing court retains a general discretion to make a reduction necessary to achieve a just result.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to conspiracies to transfer prohibited weapons and to supply heroin, cocaine and cannabis, together with offences of possessing a prohibited weapon, ammunition and cannabis with intent to supply. On 1 March 2023 he received a total sentence of 19 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

He applied for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge had refused leave. He argued that the starting points and totality reduction were excessive and that insufficient weight had been given to pressure on him and to his mitigation. The central issue was whether the aggregate sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The total sentence of 19 years and 2 months’ imprisonment was one which the sentencing judge was entitled to impose. It was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The firearms conspiracy was properly treated as category 1 harm and category A culpability. It was a large-scale, sophisticated commercial enterprise involving weapons obtained from abroad and connected with serious drug offending. The applicant was a key facilitator. His leading role in the commercial supply and brokering of very large quantities of heroin and cocaine also justified starting points of 20 years or more.

3. The judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences for the firearms and drug conspiracies, subject to totality. He then reduced the aggregate term for totality, personal mitigation and guilty pleas. The Court of Appeal held that those reductions sufficiently reflected the applicant’s asserted pressure, his progress in custody and the other mitigation.

4. The judge also permissibly reduced the sentence by 34 months for time spent in custody following recall under a life licence which would not otherwise count towards the new sentence. There was no automatic entitlement to that credit, but the court had a general discretion to achieve a just result, consistently with R v Kerrigan [2014] EWCA Crim 2348.

5. The EncroChat messages showed active and eager participation, rather than reluctant involvement. The applicant continued the offending while on licence from a life sentence. Those facts supported the judge’s assessment of seriousness and the refusal of the application.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2024] EWCA Crim 473, refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence following the single judge’s refusal.
• Crown Court at Leeds: On 1 March 2023, imposed a total sentence of 19 years and 2 months’ imprisonment after guilty pleas to firearms, ammunition and drug-supply offences.