R v Quyen To

In sentencing for a drugs conspiracy, the court may assess harm by reference both to the quantities personally handled and to the quantities the conspirators intended or foresaw. This is especially important where police intervention ends an enterprise that was intended to continue.

Consecutive sentences may properly reflect distinct criminal activities, including importation, supply and subsequent possession of criminal proceeds, even where they form part of one enterprise. The aggregate sentence must nevertheless satisfy the totality principle and be just and proportionate.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Bristol to two conspiracies to contravene section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, conspiracy to supply Class B synthetic cannabinoids, and possessing criminal property contrary to section 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

On 5 April 2024, HHJ Patrick imposed consecutive sentences for the two importation conspiracies and the criminal-property offence, with a concurrent sentence for the supply conspiracy, producing a total of 16 years’ imprisonment. The appellant contended that the consecutive terms gave insufficient effect to totality and made the sentence manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether that aggregate sentence was just and proportionate for a single but industrial-scale criminal enterprise.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment was high, but it was not manifestly excessive.

2. The scale, sophistication and persistence of the enterprise made a long sentence inevitable. It generated very large profits, involved the recruitment of others, and continued after the appellant’s first arrest. In conspiracies, the court applied the approach in Wilson [2024] EWCA Crim 124: harm is assessed by reference not only to drugs actually handled, but also to what the conspirators intended or foresaw. Here, police action ended a conspiracy that would otherwise have continued.

3. The judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences. Importation, supply and the subsequent possession of cash were distinct criminal activities and separate counts, although they formed parts of the same enterprise. The appellant’s continued offending while on police bail independently justified a consecutive sentence for possessing criminal property.

4. The sentencing judge had adequately applied totality. He imposed a concurrent sentence for the supply conspiracy and reduced the sentences for the remaining counts by a combined two and a half years. The resulting aggregate was just and proportionate in the particular circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 27 February 2025, dismissed the appeal against the total sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Bristol: On 5 April 2024, HHJ Patrick sentenced the appellant following guilty pleas to drug-importation conspiracies, a Class B drug-supply conspiracy and possessing criminal property.