R v GEE

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal will not interfere merely because a co-offender received a more favourable assessment. An admitted leading role, commercial scale and prolonged offending may properly sustain a severe sentence where the sentencing judge has not misunderstood the evidence or applied a wrong approach. Any reduction for assistance is fact-sensitive and does not follow from examples in other cases. Leave should be refused where, even allowing for a possible discount, the sentence is not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The applicant pleaded guilty to numerous drug offences on two indictments. The offences included a long-running conspiracy to supply multiple drugs through the Dark Web and further possession-with-intent offences committed after arrest. On 6 September 2024, the Crown Court imposed an overall sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application. He challenged the assessment of his role and culpability, the distinction between his sentence and that of a co-accused, the assessment of harm, the treatment of his mental health, the absence of a reduction for assistance to the police, and the application of totality. The central issue was whether any ground was reasonably arguable and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The court independently considered the renewed application and refused leave. The grounds were not reasonably arguable, and the overall sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Role and disparity. The applicant accepted that he played a leading role in the conspiracy. Although the Recorder’s analysis of the co-accused’s role appeared generous, there was no reason to conclude that the Recorder misunderstood the applicant’s role, applied the wrong approach or misunderstood his culpability. A different assessment of the co-accused did not establish an arguable disparity.
2. Harm. The Recorder placed both offenders’ offending within category 2 harm because of the large quantities involved. An unclear observation that the co-accused’s drug use might reduce his financial gain made no material difference to either sentence and did not render the applicant’s sentence wrong in principle.
3. Mental health. The Recorder had expressly considered the applicant’s ADHD diagnosis and psychological reports. There was no error of approach, and no basis for concluding that a more detailed exploration of the documented difficulties would have affected sentence.
4. Assistance. The court accepted that reductions for assistance are fact-sensitive and that examples from other cases do not establish a fixed percentage. It was prepared to assume, without deciding, that a reduction between 15 and 25 per cent might have been appropriate. The offending remained exceptionally serious: it involved a leading role in a prolonged, commercial conspiracy to supply several Class A drugs, use of the Dark Web to avoid apprehension, and continued offending after arrest. Even on that assumption, the sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
5. Totality and final order. The Recorder had adopted a cautious approach to the upward adjustment and made a substantial reduction for totality. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 6 February 2026, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 447. A single judge had previously refused leave.
2. Crown Court: On 6 September 2024, Mr Recorder Cartin sentenced the applicant, following guilty pleas to offences on two indictments, to an overall term of 11 years’ imprisonment.