R v Daniel Smith

Where several conspiracy offences are sentenced concurrently, the overall sentence must reflect the full scope of the conspiracies and the defendant’s participation in them. The relevant sentencing-guideline category should be approached using its single starting point, followed by adjustments for aggravating and mitigating factors and any guilty-plea credit.

Personal mitigation must be balanced against the scale, duration and organisation of the offending. Comparison with a co-defendant requires attention to their respective roles and positions within the applicable sentencing category. Intervention is unwarranted where the resulting sentence properly reflects those matters and is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant appealed, with leave, against a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Chester following his guilty pleas to three conspiracies to supply controlled drugs. The conspiracies concerned cocaine, MDMA and ketamine. The total sentence was 10 years and 5 months’ imprisonment, with the terms running concurrently.

The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the starting sentence was too high, insufficient weight was given to his personal mitigation, and his sentence compared unfavourably with that of a more central co-defendant. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had properly assessed the appellant’s culpability, mitigation and relative role.

Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 10 years and 5 months’ imprisonment was appropriate and was not manifestly excessive.

1. The sentencing judge’s reference to several starting points was infelicitous. The relevant sentencing-guideline category had one starting point of 10 years. The judge was required to reflect all the conspiracy counts in the overall sentence because the terms were concurrent.
2. The sentence could properly reflect the broad scope of the conspiracies, their duration, the quantities and purity of the drugs, and the appellant’s involvement in storing, preparing, weighing and supplying drugs. A conspirator’s culpability is not confined to supply transactions in which he personally participated. Participation in a wider conspiracy supports and sustains the activities of other conspirators.
3. The judge increased the single starting point by one year after taking account of aggravating and mitigating features, including the appellant’s clean record, drug addiction, personal difficulties, positive character references and conduct on remand. The Court of Appeal found no criticism to make of that balance. The 5 per cent credit for the guilty pleas was not in dispute.
4. There was no material disparity with the sentence imposed on Ryan Yates. Yates had been sentenced on the basis that his offending placed him at the very top of the same narrow category, whereas the appellant’s offending did not. The comparison therefore did not establish that the appellant’s sentence was excessive.

• Crown Court at Chester: On 21 November 2024, the appellant was sentenced to a total of 10 years and 5 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to three conspiracies to supply controlled drugs.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence was held to be appropriate rather than manifestly excessive: [2025] EWCA Crim 1593.