R v Daniel Fordham

In sentencing a drug conspiracy, role categorisation must be applied realistically where the facts straddle significant and lesser roles. A starting point at the boundary between the categories may be appropriate. An uplift for drug quantity must be proportionate to the starting point and balanced against mitigation. A sentence cannot be justified by nearly doubling the starting point without a clear and coherent explanation, especially where a cited comparator involved materially greater criminality or a different role. The Court of Appeal may intervene where the resulting sentence is excessive, quash it and substitute the appropriate term.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Norwich to conspiracy to supply Class A controlled drugs. He was sentenced by HHJ Shaw to 10 years’ imprisonment.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the case had been wrongly categorised under the sentencing guideline, that the uplift for drug quantity was excessive, that the judge had made unsupported findings, and that personal mitigation had not been properly reflected. The central issues were the appropriate role categorisation, starting point, quantity uplift and effect of mitigation.

Mrs Justice Cockerill, giving the judgment of the court, allowed the appeal against sentence.

1. The judge had not erred in categorising the appellant’s role as significant with features of lesser role. That categorisation was practically indistinguishable from lesser role with some features of significant role. The appropriate starting point was therefore 9 years, representing the boundary between the two categories.
2. The judge had erred in concluding that the least sentence after trial would have been 15 years. The reasoning did not explain how that figure had been reached. It appeared to involve an uplift of nearly 100 per cent from the starting point.
3. The reference in R v Johnson & Ors [2022] EWCA Crim 1575 to a 20-year sentence concerned materially different offending: a conspiracy involving a raw weight of 22 kilograms, a defendant squarely in a significant role, and conduct undertaken from prison. That reference was not erroneous, but it did not justify the same approach in the present case.
4. An uplift for quantity was plainly required, but in this case the appropriate uplift was balanced by the mitigating factors, including the appellant’s lack of previous convictions, frankness, remorse, personal circumstances and low risk of reoffending.
5. The original sentence was too long and the basis for it justified appellate intervention. The 10-year sentence was quashed. A sentence of 9 years before credit for plea, reduced to 6 years after credit, was substituted. The appellant was entitled to credit for 167 days spent on remand.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 21 June 2024, in [2024] EWCA Crim 768, allowed the appeal, quashed the 10-year sentence and substituted 6 years’ imprisonment, with credit for 167 days on remand.
• Crown Court at Norwich: On 25 May 2023, HHJ Shaw sentenced the appellant to 10 years’ imprisonment following his guilty plea.