R v Richard Weild & Anor

In sentencing a drug conspiracy, the court must assess an offender’s individual role and any factors limiting it. It may also take account of the wider criminal enterprise which the offender knowingly supported. Personal involvement in a particular quantity is not determinative. Harm may include quantities intended or foreseen by the conspirators, particularly where police intervention ended an intended continuing enterprise.

An apparently ancillary participant may properly be placed in a significant role where active assistance, knowledge of the operation’s scale, trusted participation and duration demonstrate meaningful support for it. A sentence pronounced in open court takes legal effect; an inconsistent administrative record does not displace it.

Following guilty pleas, Richard Weild and John Morris were sentenced in the Crown Court at Liverpool on 16 March 2023 for large-scale drug and related offending arising from EncroChat material obtained during Operation Venetic. Weild received a concurrent total of 19½ years’ imprisonment and Morris a concurrent total of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Weild renewed an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge. Morris appealed with the single judge’s leave. The principal issues were whether their roles and personal mitigation had been properly assessed, and whether the resulting sentences were excessive. A further issue arose because concurrent sentences on two counts had been announced against Morris although those counts had been ordered to lie on the file.

1. Disposition. The court dismissed Weild’s renewed application and dismissed Morris’s appeal, save for a technical correction. The concurrent sentences announced against Morris on Counts 3 and 5 were quashed. This did not affect his total sentence of 10 years.
2. Weild. His leading role in the direct supply of 30kg of cocaine alone justified a post-trial sentence above 20 years. The judge was also entitled to find leading-role elements in the adulteration operation because Weild had substantial links with, and influence on, others in the supply chain. The other drug and money-laundering offences were further aggravating features. The judge had properly treated family consequences and other personal mitigation as carrying limited weight in criminality of this gravity.
3. Conspiracy sentencing. Applying R v Khan & ors [2013] EWCA Crim 800 and R v Wilson [2024] EWCA Crim 124, the court held that sentencing must reflect factors limiting an individual conspirator’s role, but may also reflect that participation supports the wider criminal enterprise. The assessment of harm is not confined to quantities personally handled. It may include intended or foreseen quantities.
4. Morris. Morris’s role was not merely passive. His premises were used for more than eighteen months, he assisted the adulteration operation by making stamps, and he was trusted to communicate with customers. His knowledge of the operation’s scale, active assistance and duration properly placed him within the significant-role category. His good character and personal mitigation did not make a notional post-trial sentence of 15 years excessive.
5. Sentences pronounced. Following R v Kent [1983] 77 Cr App R 120, the court held that the sentence announced in open court is effective, rather than the later administrative record. The wrongly announced concurrent sentences therefore required formal quashing.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed Weild’s renewed application and Morris’s appeal, subject to quashing two technically invalid concurrent sentences: [2024] EWCA Crim 690.
• Crown Court at Liverpool — on 16 March 2023, HHJ Aubery KC imposed concurrent total sentences of 19½ years’ imprisonment on Weild and 10 years’ imprisonment on Morris following guilty pleas.