R v Anthony Henry Terry

In sentencing related offending while an offender is already serving a sentence, the court must assess the further sentence required for the additional criminality. A 10 per cent reduction for a guilty plea on the first day of trial is a maximum, not an entitlement. Where totality applies, calculating credit by reference to the aggregate sentence may overstate the reduction if the plea relates only to the additional offending. Comparisons with sentences in other cases must account for all significant factors, not merely drug quantity or the length of the conspiracy. An old conviction for similar serious offending may remain aggravating. A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for an offence is unlawful and must be corrected even if it did not affect the overall assessment.

R v Anthony Henry Terry concerned an application for an extension of 268 days and leave to appeal against a 25-year sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Stafford and Wolverhampton on 8 December 2023 after guilty pleas to drug importation and supply offences. The sentence ran concurrently with an 18-year sentence imposed earlier in 2023 for related cocaine-export offending. The grounds challenged the starting point, totality, treatment of previous convictions, role categorisation and credit for plea. A renewed challenge to the 18-year sentence was not pressed. The central issues were whether any sentencing error made the 25-year sentence manifestly excessive and whether the sentence imposed on the class B drug importation count exceeded the lawful maximum.

1. Outcome. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal only in respect of the unlawful sentence imposed on count 6. It allowed the appeal on that count, quashed the sentence of 25 years and substituted 14 years, concurrent with the other counts and the existing 18-year sentence. The remaining grounds were not reasonably arguable and the appeal was otherwise dismissed.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to categorise the offender as having a leading role. The judge had heard the evidence and identified several leading-role characteristics, including organising and directing a large commercial operation, substantial links and influence, and an expectation of significant financial advantage. The Court of Appeal would not interfere merely because a significant role could also be argued.
3. A starting point of 27 years was not manifestly excessive for offending on the most serious commercial scale involving quantities substantially above Category 1. Sentence comparisons must reflect all significant factors, rather than only drug weight or the length of the conspiracy. The court distinguished R v Wraight [2021] EWCA Crim 1968 because the offender there was at the lower end of the leading-role category, remained subject to instructions from others and had more substantial personal mitigation. The approach in R v Hizam [2023] EWCA Crim 628 was applied.
4. The sentencing judge correctly applied totality by considering what further sentence was required for the additional offending alongside the 18-year sentence already being served. The further criminality could not properly be marked by merely adding a few months.
5. A guilty plea on the first day of trial does not carry an automatic 10 per cent reduction. Ten per cent is the maximum contemplated by the guideline. The appropriate credit is for the sentencing judge to assess in all the circumstances. Since the plea concerned only the additional offending, a 10 per cent reduction against the combined 28-year figure could overstate the credit; assessing it against the additional time was a permissible approach.
6. The 2006 conviction for serious drug offending was properly treated as aggravating despite its age. The intervening period without convictions did not constitute significant mitigation. The February 2021 offending was part of the overall criminality for totality purposes, not a previous conviction aggravating the later sentence.
7. The sentence on count 6 was unlawful because importation of a class B controlled drug carried a maximum sentence of 14 years. That error did not affect the overall assessment, but the unlawful sentence had to be corrected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 726, the court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal in limited respect, substituted a 14-year concurrent sentence on count 6, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.
• Crown Court at Stafford and Wolverhampton — On 8 December 2023, following guilty pleas, the court imposed 25 years’ imprisonment concurrent on the counts and concurrent with an existing 18-year sentence imposed on 28 January 2023 for related offending.