R v Oliver Paske

A sentence is not manifestly excessive on a totality challenge where it properly reflects the full scale of a defendant’s criminality, including substantial wholesale drug supply, the sums involved and related firearms offending.

The use of an encrypted communications device to conceal criminal activity is an aggravating feature. It may properly aggravate separate offending even where it had also been taken into account on an earlier sentence. A defendant who delayed guilty pleas, retained disputed issues and gained a forensic advantage from that delay is not entitled to greater plea credit merely because other proceedings took time to resolve.

R v Oliver Paske concerned a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, together with applications to extend time. The applicant had pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Stafford to conspiracies involving cocaine, cannabis, amphetamine and the sale or transfer of prohibited weapons.

On 5 January 2024, HHJ Edwards imposed 11 years’ imprisonment for the cocaine conspiracy and a concurrent 11-year term for the weapons conspiracy, with no separate penalties on the remaining counts. The applicant challenged the overall effect of those sentences with an earlier six-year firearms sentence, the uplift for EncroChat use, and the 15 per cent guilty-plea credit.

1. The court granted the short three-day extension required to renew the application. It refused the substantive 111-day extension and leave to appeal because none of the proposed grounds was arguable.

2. The totality challenge failed. The aggregate 17-year sentence could not be described as manifestly excessive when the whole criminality was considered. That criminality included wholesale supply involving 28 kilograms of cocaine, substantial sums of money and firearms offending. The earlier firearm conviction did not make the later sentence disproportionate.

3. Use of an EncroChat device was properly treated as aggravating. Its sophisticated nature assisted the concealment of criminality. The feature had properly aggravated the earlier firearm offence and could also properly aggravate the distinct conspiracies sentenced in the present proceedings.

4. The 15 per cent reduction for guilty pleas disclosed no error. The applicant had not pleaded guilty or accepted attribution of the phone at the pre-trial preliminary hearing. Although he pleaded after the autrefois acquit issue had been determined, he could earlier have pleaded guilty to the counts for which he was guilty. He had also obtained an advantage by maintaining issues while the admissibility of EncroChat evidence was being resolved in other proceedings.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the renewed application, the court granted a three-day extension to renew but refused the 111-day extension to make the original application and refused leave to appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 180.

• Crown Court at Stafford: On 5 January 2024, HHJ Edwards sentenced the applicant following guilty pleas to the conspiracies.