R v Donna Wynstanley

On a renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence, the application should be refused where the sentence is not arguably wrong in principle and is not arguably manifestly excessive. For a street-dealing Class A drug conspiracy, a sentence at the top of the guideline range may be justified by the likely quantity of drugs and conduct demonstrating more than a lesser role. Totality must reflect separate serious conspiracies. An offender who uses investigative delay to commit further offending cannot rely on that delay as mitigation. Express consideration of personal mitigation, favourable rounding and totality adjustments may answer a complaint that mitigation was overlooked. A hopeless renewed application may attract a loss of time order.

The applicant pleaded guilty to four counts of supplying Class A drugs arising from two separate conspiracies. The Crown Court at Shrewsbury sentenced her to five years and six months’ imprisonment. A single judge refused permission to appeal against sentence.

On renewal, the applicant challenged the categorisation of the first conspiracy, the uplift applied to the starting point, the treatment of investigative delay and the assessment of mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentence was arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of five years and six months was neither arguably wrong in principle nor arguably manifestly excessive. The single judge had correctly identified why the application could not succeed.
2. Category and role. The first conspiracy properly fell within category 3 for street dealing. Although the lesser-role starting point was three years, with a recommended range of two to four and a half years, the sentencing judge was entitled to select the top of the range. The likely quantity of drugs, the applicant’s involvement in advertising the drugs by telephone and her trips to locations where the drugs were held justified the conclusion that her role was more than lesser. The resulting four-and-a-half-year notional sentence, reduced by 10 per cent for the guilty plea to four years, was justified.
3. Delay and totality. The sentencing judge had expressly considered delay. The applicant had pleaded guilty late, and, while on bail following the first investigation, had used the delay to become involved in a second serious Class A drug conspiracy. That was an acute aggravating factor. The additional 18 months imposed for the second conspiracy was generous and did not warrant reduction.
4. Mitigation. The sentencing judge had expressly considered the applicant’s health, previous abuse and caring responsibilities. Favourable rounding and the generous treatment of the second conspiracy indirectly reflected those matters. Even an additional term of two or two and a half years for the second conspiracy could have been justified after allowing for totality.
5. Loss of time. The renewed application was hopeless and placed an unnecessary burden on the criminal appeal system. A loss of time order of 28 days was therefore made.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused, and a loss of time order of 28 days was made: [2025] EWCA Crim 1141.
• Crown Court at Shrewsbury: The applicant was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment on 2 September 2024 after pleading guilty to four counts arising from two drug conspiracies.
• Single judge: Permission to appeal against sentence was refused before the application was renewed.