R v Ashley Hook & Anor

When a conspiracy to supply drugs and a conspiracy to transfer criminal property concern the same proceeds and are closely linked, they should be treated as part and parcel of the same offending for sentencing. The totality principle may require concurrent sentences. A reduction to a consecutive sentence for totality may still leave the overall sentence disproportionate. A short period of offending does not necessarily prevent a significant or leading role finding where the offending involved substantial quantities and the period was more than fleeting. An appellate court will not disturb a sentencing judge’s role assessment where compelling reasons support it. Comparisons with co-offenders do not establish undue disparity where their roles and positions differ.

Hook and Sirrell were convicted at Nottingham Crown Court in connection with conspiracies involving the supply of Class A drugs. Hook was also convicted of conspiring to transfer criminal property. On 30 March 2023, Hook received consecutive sentences totalling 13 years, and Sirrell received 15 years’ imprisonment.

Hook appealed against sentence, arguing that his role and starting point had been overstated, that there had been double counting, and that consecutive sentences breached totality. Sirrell renewed his application for permission to appeal and sought an extension of time, relying principally on the assessment of his role and disparity with co-defendants. The central issues were whether Hook’s offences should attract concurrent sentences and whether Sirrell’s sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The court allowed Hook’s appeal to the limited extent that the sentence for conspiracy to transfer criminal property was made concurrent with the sentence for the drugs conspiracy. Sirrell’s applications for an extension of time and permission to appeal were refused.

1. Hook. The two conspiracies were closely linked. The criminal property was, in substance, cash received for the supply of drugs under the first conspiracy. The sentencing judge had referred to the money-laundering conspiracy as aggravating the drugs offence and had then imposed consecutive sentences. This involved some double counting.
2. The court applied the totality approach in the Sentencing Council guideline, reflected in R v Cooper, Park and Fletcher [2023] EWCA Crim 945, [2024] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 14, particularly paragraphs [8]-[12]. The offences were part and parcel of the same offending. Concurrent sentences were warranted, since the consecutive structure produced a disproportionate overall sentence.
3. The judge was entitled to find that Hook played a significant role and to set the drugs-conspiracy starting point at 12½ years. His involvement lasted several weeks, was more than fleeting, and concerned substantial quantities of drugs and money. The reduction for personal mitigation was not disturbed. Only the consecutive structure required correction.
4. Sirrell. The judge was entitled to classify Sirrell as having a leading role. Sirrell did more than act as a call-handler: he arranged supplies and resolved issues between the organised crime group and upstream suppliers. The judge’s evaluation was supported by compelling reasons and was informed by his having presided over the trial.
5. Comparison with co-defendants did not show unlawful disparity. Their roles and positions differed, and the judge had taken account of the shorter duration of Sirrell’s involvement. His sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2024] EWCA Crim 621, Hook’s sentence was varied by making the sentence for conspiracy to transfer criminal property concurrent with the drugs-conspiracy sentence. Sirrell’s applications were refused.
2. Nottingham Crown Court. Following convictions on 31 March 2022, HHJ Coupland sentenced Hook on 30 March 2023 to consecutive terms totalling 13 years and sentenced Sirrell to 15 years’ imprisonment.