R v Michael Weston

In sentencing for large-scale drug conspiracy, the offender’s role must be assessed alongside the quantity and commercial scale of the operation. A courier entrusted with collecting a very large quantity may warrant a substantial sentence above the guideline range, although the sentence must remain proportionate to that individual role.

Where an offender is sentenced for an earlier offence after already being sentenced for distinct offending, totality does not require an automatic deduction. A concurrent sentence may provide sufficient allowance. The court may consider related offending when deciding whether the instant offence formed part of the offender’s livelihood.

The appellant appealed with leave against a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment imposed by Her Honour Judge Kamill at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. He had pleaded guilty on the basis that he played a significant but not leading role as a courier and was due to collect 39 kg of cocaine from a much larger consignment.

The appeal challenged the notional sentence of 20 years before credit for plea, reliance on an earlier drug-supply offence and confiscation order, disparity with the sentence imposed on a co-defendant, totality, and delay in prosecution. The central issues were whether the notional sentence was excessive and whether the other matters required a further reduction.

1. Sentence. The conspiracy operated on the most serious and commercial scale. Although the appellant was a courier rather than an organiser, he was a trusted participant due to collect nearly eight times the guideline’s category 1 indicative quantity. His proximity to importation, anticipated financial reward and apparent experience justified a substantial uplift above the significant-role category range.
2. The notional sentence of 20 years was nevertheless manifestly excessive. The appropriate notional sentence was 16 years, producing a sentence of 12 years and nine months after credit for the guilty plea.
3. Totality. Where the instant offence predates an offence for which the offender has already been sentenced, the court should first determine the appropriate sentence for the instant offences. It then has a discretion whether, and to what extent, the earlier sentence should affect the new sentence. There is no automatic deduction. Under section 384 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the absence of an order for consecutive sentences meant that the new sentence ran concurrently. No further reduction was required for the distinct but similar offending.
4. The sentencing judge was entitled to consider the earlier offence and confiscation order in deciding whether the instant offending was isolated or part of the appellant’s livelihood. The appellant’s messages and conduct in the instant offence independently supported that assessment.
5. For alleged disparity, the governing question remained that stated in R v Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 158: whether a right-thinking member of the public, knowing the facts, would conclude that something had gone wrong in the administration of justice. A merciful sentence for the co-defendant did not satisfy that test.
6. Delay in prosecuting serious organised crime did not justify mitigation in these circumstances. The explanation in R v McGoldrick [2025] EWCA Crim 301 applied: investigation may require time to gather evidence, identify the extent of multiple offenders’ involvement and avoid alerting others. The appeal was allowed to the extent of substituting 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment.

1. Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 13 December 2024, Her Honour Judge Kamill imposed 16 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On appeal with leave, the court allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment: [2026] EWCA Crim 708.