R v Sam Coleman

In sentence appeals involving serious, distinct drug and firearms offending, consecutive terms may be imposed where the court applies totality and makes an appropriate overall reduction. A leading role may be established by high-level control of wholesale distribution, commercial contacts and access to weapons to consolidate the enterprise. The use of encrypted communications to facilitate crime and frustrate law enforcement is a serious aggravating factor. A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because ancillary factual findings are challenged where any error could not affect the overall term. Guilty pleas, remorse and conduct on remand remain relevant mitigation.

Following guilty pleas in the Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames, the applicant was sentenced to an overall term of 21 years’ imprisonment for conspiracies involving wholesale cocaine supply, criminal property, prohibited weapons and ammunition, together with possession of cocaine with intent to supply and associated criminal property offences.

He renewed applications for a nine-day extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence. He argued that his role in the cocaine conspiracy was significant rather than leading, that insufficient credit had been given for his guilty plea to the firearms conspiracy, that the sentence for street-level supply was outside the guidelines, that certain factual findings were wrong, and that use of an EncroChat device should not have increased the sentence. The central issue was whether the sentences were arguably manifestly excessive.

1. Disposition. The applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence were refused. None of the grounds disclosed an arguable basis for concluding that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
2. Role in the drug conspiracy. The applicant had performed a leading role in a sophisticated, large-scale and commercial enterprise involving the wholesale supply of kilogram quantities of cocaine. He controlled distribution and supply, worked with others, and had the means and contacts to consolidate and enforce his position. Access to prohibited weapons intended for criminal use reinforced that assessment. The drug offending and associated criminal-property conspiracy could, in themselves, have justified a sentence exceeding 20 years after mitigation and guilty-plea credit.
3. Firearms offending. The conspiracy involved multiple prohibited weapons of the most lethal kind and associated ammunition, intended to facilitate high-level drug dealing. That offending justified the maximum sentence for a single offence before mitigation. The sentence was reduced from 10 years to 8 years to reflect the guilty plea and was not arguably excessive.
4. Other grounds. The sentencing judge was entitled to impose the sentence for the street-supply count, taking account of the associated criminal-property offending. The concurrent sentences had little, if any, effect on the lead sentence. Even if the challenged findings about a money-counting machine and drivers were wrong, they could not have affected the overall sentence. Use of an EncroChat phone was properly treated as a serious aggravating factor because it facilitated criminal activity and frustrated law enforcement.
5. Totality. The judge had regard to totality and made a substantial reduction from the sentence otherwise appropriate on the lead drug count. Consecutive sentences for the distinct drug and firearms offending were proper. The overall term of 21 years, having regard also to the guilty pleas, remorse and conduct on remand, was just and proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on [2024] EWCA Crim 706, refused the applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames: following guilty pleas, sentenced the applicant on 24 August 2023 to an overall term of 21 years’ imprisonment.