R v John James Dillon

When sentencing a conspiracy to supply or import controlled drugs, the court must make a fair but realistic assessment of the overall scale of the actual and intended operation. It is not confined to the quantity demonstrably supplied during a short period of encrypted-data capture. Provided the sentencing judge remains true to the agreed factual basis and the defendant’s plea, the surrounding evidence may justify an inference that the conspiracy extended before and after that period. The sentence must reflect the total criminality of all relevant conspiracies.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Liverpool to three conspiracies concerning the supply or importation of cocaine and to possessing criminal property. The evidence principally comprised EncroChat communications captured between March and June 2020.

On 28 September 2023, HHJ Swinnerton imposed concurrent sentences totalling 18 years and nine months’ imprisonment. The applicant renewed, after a single judge’s refusal, his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He accepted the applicable sentencing range and the judge’s role and quantity findings, but contended that the starting points overstated his involvement and produced a manifestly excessive sentence.

Application refused. The court held that the total sentence of 18 years and nine months’ imprisonment was not arguably manifestly excessive.

1. In determining sentence for the drug conspiracies, the judge had to make a fair but realistic assessment of their overall scale, including actual and intended operations. The court applied R v Cavanagh [2021] EWCA Crim 1584.
2. The judge was not confined to the weight of cocaine shown to have been supplied during the EncroChat data-capture period. That period represented only a short part of the alleged conspiracies. Provided the judge remained true to the applicant’s basis of plea, as modified by the agreed factual position, he could infer from the evidence that the conspiracies had operated for a substantial period before and after the capture window.
3. The lead sentence properly reflected the overall criminality. The offending comprised three substantial class A drug conspiracies, international connections, sophistication, use of EncroChat, numerous communications with other users, and large actual or intended quantities of cocaine. The applicant had accepted a leading role in two conspiracies and a significant role in the third.
4. The applicant’s long period without offending and lack of relevant previous convictions provided limited mitigation in this context. The sentencing judge’s selected starting points were open to him, and there was no arguable basis to interfere.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2024] EWCA Crim 792, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following the single judge’s refusal.
• Crown Court at Liverpool. On 28 September 2023, HHJ Swinnerton imposed concurrent sentences totalling 18 years and nine months’ imprisonment for the four offences.