R v Christian Topor & Anor

In sentencing large-scale drug offences, the offender’s role may properly be assessed as significant where one or more relevant culpability characteristics is established. A managerial or controlling role is not required. Drug quantity may be materially relevant, but it cannot alone determine the role category. Where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale, the sentencing guidelines contemplate starting points of 20 years or more, depending on the offender’s role. The guidelines must be applied through judicial assessment of a just and proportionate sentence. Their figures cannot be extrapolated arithmetically from the quantity table.

Two brothers pleaded guilty at Canterbury Crown Court to fraudulent evasion of a prohibited substance, contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Each was sentenced to 15 years and six months’ imprisonment, following a sentence of 20 years before credit for the guilty pleas.

The Crown Court treated both offenders as having a significant role in transporting 161 kilograms of high-purity cocaine. They appealed, arguing that they were couriers whose roles should not have been elevated by the quantity of drugs, and that the 20-year starting point was manifestly excessive. The central issues were the proper assessment of role and whether the sentencing guidelines permitted the starting point adopted.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentences of 15 years and six months’ imprisonment were upheld.
2. The sentencing judge had applied the relevant guidelines correctly in assessing both appellants as having a significant role. The guidelines describe culpability as being demonstrated by one or more specified characteristics. On the facts, the judge was entitled to find an expectation of significant financial or other advantage and some awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation. A managerial or controlling role was not required. The judge’s assessment was not based solely on quantity, although the quantity was materially relevant to the overall appraisal of involvement.
3. The guideline starting point of 10 years was based on one kilogram of class A drugs. The quantity in this case was very substantially greater and was redolent of an operation on the most serious and commercial scale. The guidelines contemplated sentences of 20 years and above, depending on role, to reflect the substantial societal harm caused.
4. It was impermissible to extrapolate arithmetically from the guideline table to produce a different starting point. Sentencing under the guidelines is an exercise of judgment in which the guidelines frame and shape the determination of a just and proportionate sentence.
5. The court accepted the personal mitigation arising from the appellants’ youth and good character, but concluded that the sentences faithfully and correctly reflected the guidelines. The guilty plea reduction and the resulting sentences could not properly be criticised.

• Crown Court at Canterbury: The appellants pleaded guilty and were sentenced by Recorder Bate-Williams on 9 May 2025 to 15 years and six months’ imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On appeal, the court dismissed the appeals and upheld the sentences: [2026] EWCA Crim 128.