Clarifying “Leading Role”, Totality and Unlawful Maximums in Multi-Count Drug Importation:
Commentary on Terry, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 726)

1. Introduction

Anthony Terry, a prolific class-A drug trafficker, applied to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) for (a) an extension of time and leave to appeal against a 25-year sentence imposed in December 2023 for a series of cocaine and cannabis importations carried out during the first COVID-19 lockdown, and (b) renewed leave to appeal an earlier 18-year sentence passed in January 2023 for a separate February 2021 importation of 20 kg of cocaine into Northern Ireland.

The appeal raised six substantive challenges centring on: the sentencing starting point, application of the totality principle, treatment of previous convictions, categorisation of Terry’s role, credit for a late guilty plea and the legality of the 25-year term on the cannabis count. The single judge had identified only two arguably meritorious grounds; the full Court (Constable J; Ct. of App. Crim. Div.) ultimately:

• refused most grounds as “not reasonably arguable”;
• granted a limited extension of time merely to correct an unlawful excess of statutory maximum on the cannabis count (Count 6); and
• substituted 14 years (the legal maximum) for that count, leaving the remainder of the 25-year sentence and the earlier 18-year sentence intact and concurrent.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held:

1. Extension of time: Granted only to rectify the unlawful sentence on the cannabis importation count; otherwise refused owing to a 268-day unexplained delay.
2. “Leading role” finding: The sentencing judge had been entitled to classify Terry as occupying a leading role in extensive, international conspiracies; any suggestion of a “significant” rather than “leading” role was “hopeless”.
3. Starting point of 27 years: Not manifestly excessive given (i) a minimum of 55.5 kg (and probably far more) of imported cocaine, (ii) multi-kilogram cannabis shipments and (iii) hallmarks of high-end, commercial drug supply during national lockdown.
4. Totality: The judge properly treated the two distinct conspiracies as one continuum of serious criminality when adjusting the aggregate sentence.
5. Plea credit: A deduction of roughly 3–5 % (1–1.5 years) was within the permissible range for a first-day-of-trial plea in the circumstances.
6. Unlawful sentence on Count 6: The 25-year term exceeded the 14-year statutory maximum for importing class B drugs; corrected accordingly.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Sentencing Council Guidelines – “Supply of Class A drugs (drugs offences guideline, effective 1 Apr 2021)”
  Provides the offence categories (by drug weight) and role descriptors (“leading”, “significant”, “lesser”). The Court repeatedly emphasised that Terry exhibited multiple “leading role” markers: direction, organisation, substantial influence and expectation of large financial advantage.
• R v Wraight [2021] EWCA Crim 1968
  Cited by the appellant to argue the 27-year starting point was excessive. The Court distinguished Wraight because (a) Wraight’s leadership was at the lower end and (b) greater mitigation there. Hence Wraight did not cap sentences in higher-gravity cases like Terry.
• R v Hizam [2023] EWCA Crim 628, §25
  Quoted to reaffirm the well-known warning: case-comparison exercises are often unhelpful unless all material factors (role, weight, duration, mitigation etc.) align.
• Common-law authorities on totality (e.g., James, Millberry) were implicitly applied: the Court accepted the sentencing judge’s holistic approach, treating the January 2023 and December 2023 sentences as forming an overall just quantum, rather than merely adding months.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Extension-of-Time Test
   Delay of 268 days warranted explanation. Only the need to correct an unlawful sentence met the “interests of justice”; the remainder lacked good reason.
2. Role Categorisation
   EncroChat logs, logistics coordination, pricing strategies and cross-border supervision revealed Terry as the “beating heart” of the conspiracies—an archetypal leading role.
3. Starting Point & Quantity Assessment
   The guideline’s Category 1 threshold is 5 kg cocaine. Here, even the minimum conceded total (55.5 kg) was eleven times that figure, not accounting for large cannabis volumes. The guideline expressly permits 20+ year sentences “where quantities are significantly higher than Category 1”.
4. Totality Principle
   Because the 18-year sentence (February 2021 offence) reflected criminality after the March-to-September 2020 offending, the judge logically asked: “What additional sentence above 18 years is merited to reflect the earlier offending?” 27 years (raised to 28 for the Irish conviction, then reduced to 25) was within discretion.
5. Plea Credit Calculation
   The guideline caps first-day-of-trial credit at 10 %. The judge instead operated a global exercise: three years total deduction for plea and scant personal mitigation. No error in principle.
6. Unlawful Maximum Correction
   s.170 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 sets a 14-year ceiling for importing a class B drug. Granting leave only on that point, the Court quashed the 25-year term on Count 6 and substituted 14 years, concurrent, leaving the global sentence unchanged.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Judgment

• Re-affirmation of High Tariffs for Pandemic-Period, Large-Scale Trafficking – Courts may treat lockdown offending as aggravating, emphasising public health cynicism.
• Guidance on “Leading Role” vs “Significant Role” – Where an offender organises multiple couriers, fixes prices and routes, and maintains international contacts, the leading tag is hard to overturn on appeal.
• Totality Exercises in Staggered Prosecutions – The decision confirms sentencing judges may conceptually merge temporally related drug conspiracies when assessing overall culpability, rather than viewing earlier sentences as mere “previous convictions”.
• Unlawful Maximum Vigilance – Even meticulous judges can inadvertently exceed statutory caps on lesser counts. The Court’s willingness to entertain a time-barred appeal solely to cure illegality underscores the constitutional imperative to impose only lawful sentences.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Leading vs Significant Role (Drug Guidelines)
  • Leading: directs or organises buying/selling on commercial scale, controls others, expects substantial gain.
  • Significant: operational or management function but takes instructions from above, some but not total awareness of scale.
• Totality Principle
  Courts must ensure the overall sentence for multiple offences is “just and proportionate” to the total offending, avoiding both double-counting and undue leniency.
• Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentences
  • Concurrent: run at the same time; appropriate where offences form part of a single transaction or series.
  • Consecutive: added end-to-end; used where offences are unrelated or distinctly aggravating.
• Extension of Time
  Appeals normally must be filed within 28 days. An extension will be granted only if (a) a good reason for delay exists and (b) the proposed appeal is arguable and meritorious.
• EncroChat Evidence
  An encrypted phone network infiltrated by law-enforcement in 2020; messages archived from it now routinely underpin UK drug prosecutions.

5. Conclusion

Terry provides a crisp reaffirmation that organisers of high-volume, international drug conspiracies can expect sentences well above 20 years, especially where operations persist during extraordinary circumstances such as a national lockdown. The Court’s careful dissection of role categorisation, starting points, and totality offers valuable guidance to sentencing judges and practitioners alike. Equally, the judgment highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in rectifying unlawful sentences, even where the overall term remains untouched. In the broader landscape, Terry strengthens precedent on:

• the breadth of “leading role”;
• integration of staggered prosecutions under the totality principle; and
• the non-negotiable nature of statutory maximums.

Future defendants seeking to challenge lengthy drug sentences must therefore mount arguments that genuinely undermine these pillars rather than revisiting well-trodden ground. Conversely, sentencing courts are reminded to double-check statutory maxima, but can remain confident that appropriately reasoned, high starting points for large-scale conspiracies will withstand appellate scrutiny.