R v Peter Thompson

Role in a large-scale Class A drug conspiracy must be assessed by balancing all relevant role characteristics with the scale of the operation. An offender need not be at the very top of the hierarchy to have a leading role. A trusted coordinator working directly for a principal organiser may properly be placed in that category. Consecutive sentences for related firearms offences may be appropriate where separate aggravation requires recognition, concurrent terms would undermine a statutory minimum, or concurrent sentencing would fail to reflect the overall criminality. Totality requires the aggregate sentence to reflect the offending, harm, culpability and aggravating and mitigating factors, while remaining just and proportionate.

The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal against a sentence imposed by the Central Criminal Court on 28 June 2024. He received 16½ years for his involvement in a large cocaine importation conspiracy, five years consecutively for possessing a prohibited firearm, and five years concurrently for possessing prohibited ammunition.

The proposed appeal challenged the assessment of his role as leading, the use of consecutive sentencing, and the weight given to mitigation. The central issue was whether the total sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. The sentence was not arguably wrong in principle, manifestly excessive, or otherwise inconsistent with totality.
2. Under the unlawful Class A drug importation guideline, culpability is assessed by weighing all relevant role characteristics. Where characteristics point towards different categories, or the scale of the operation affects the assessment, the sentencer must balance them to reach a fair conclusion.
3. The applicant’s position justified the conclusion that he had a leading role. He worked directly for a principal organiser, was exceptionally trusted, coordinated collections and deliveries, and had substantial responsibility for very large quantities of cocaine. It was immaterial that others occupied positions above him in the hierarchy. The distinction between the top of the significant-role category and the bottom of the leading-role category did not make the sentence arguably excessive.
4. For an operation on the most serious and commercial scale, involving quantities substantially above the highest guideline category, a sentence of 20 years or more may be appropriate depending on role. The conspiracy sentence, assessed before credit for the guilty plea at an indicative 22 years, was consistent with the scale of the operation, the use of sophisticated technology to avoid detection, mitigation, and totality.
5. A consecutive structure for related offending will ordinarily be appropriate where a separate aggravating element requires recognition, concurrent sentences would improperly undermine a statutory minimum, or concurrent sentences would fail to reflect the overall criminality.
6. The totality principle requires the overall sentence to reflect all the offending, overall harm and culpability, and aggravating and mitigating factors relating both to the offences and the offender. The component sentences may be adjusted to ensure that the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate. The firearms sentences at the statutory minimum were compatible with that approach, notwithstanding the consecutive structure.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 1517.
2. Central Criminal Court — On 28 June 2024, HHJ Leonard KC sentenced the applicant to 21½ years’ imprisonment for the cocaine conspiracy and firearms offences.