R v Eimantas Gaidamavicias & Anor

Where a sentence on a principal count is increased to reflect an offender’s total criminality across several offences, the increase must be made before applying the guilty-plea reduction. Applying the reduction first and then adding an uplift gives no credit for guilty pleas to the additional offences and may produce a manifestly excessive sentence. The principal count may carry the overall custodial term, with shorter sentences on other counts remaining concurrent, provided the resulting sentence is proportionate to the total criminality.

This was a joint appeal against sentence from the Crown Court at Nottingham. Both appellants pleaded guilty to conspiracies to supply several classes of drugs. Gaidamavicias also pleaded guilty to conspiracies involving nitrous oxide and the importation of cannabis.

The judge treated the cocaine conspiracy as the principal count, imposed sentences of 16 years on Gaidamavicias and 14 years on Mphande, and imposed shorter concurrent sentences on the remaining counts. He applied a one-third guilty-plea reduction before increasing the sentences to reflect the appellants’ overall offending. The central issue was whether the totality uplift should instead have been applied before the guilty-plea discount.

1. Appeals allowed in part. The sentences on count 1 were quashed and replaced. Gaidamavicias was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment and Mphande to 12 years and eight months’ imprisonment. The shorter concurrent sentences remained unaltered.
2. The judge was entitled to find that both appellants played a leading role. Each was involved in sourcing substantial quantities of drugs, understood the scale of the conspiracies and expected significant profits. The judge was also entitled to place the cocaine offending in category 1 under the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline, because at least five kilograms had been supplied. A starting point of 14 years, increased to 15 years for aggravating features, was unarguable.
3. The sentence on the principal count had properly to reflect each appellant’s total criminality, including the range and quantities of drugs involved. The court accepted that, absent guilty pleas, uplifts of six years for Gaidamavicias and four years for Mphande would have been proportionate.
4. The error was one of sequencing. The totality uplift had been applied after the one-third guilty-plea reduction. That meant that no credit was given for the guilty pleas to the additional offences. The resulting sentences were therefore manifestly excessive. The proper approach was to apply the totality uplift first and then apply the guilty-plea discount.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1416, the appeals against sentence were allowed in part. The principal-count sentences were quashed and replaced, while the concurrent sentences remained unchanged.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: The appellants pleaded guilty to multiple drug-supply conspiracies and were sentenced to 16 years and 14 years’ imprisonment respectively on the principal cocaine counts, with shorter concurrent sentences on the other counts.