Leading Role, EncroChat, and Totality in Industrial‑Scale Drug Conspiracies: Commentary on R v Thompson [2025] EWCA Crim 1517

1. Introduction

The decision in R v Thompson [2025] EWCA Crim 1517 is a Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ruling on a renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence. Although formally a refusal of leave, it provides a clear and structured reaffirmation of how the courts should:

• assess “leading role” in large-scale Class A drug conspiracies;
• apply the Sentencing Council’s Unlawful Importation of Class A Drugs Guideline when quantities vastly exceed category 1 thresholds;
• approach totality where long drug sentences sit alongside mandatory minimum firearms sentences; and
• treat EncroChat-enabled conspiracies and associated firearms possession.

The judgment is particularly important in the context of EncroChat prosecutions, where encrypted communications have revealed industrial-scale criminal operations. It also clarifies that the boundary between “top of significant role” and “bottom of leading role” may be of limited practical importance in such extreme cases: overall harm and culpability will drive the length of sentence.

2. Factual Background

2.1 The offending conduct

Between March and June 2020, Mr Thompson participated in a conspiracy to import and distribute very substantial quantities of cocaine into the United Kingdom. The operation was structured as follows:

• James Harding, operating under the EncroChat handle topsking from Dubai, led the criminal enterprise.
• The applicant, Mr Thompson, using handles demon and logicaldemon, worked directly to Harding.
• He received consignments shortly after arrival in the UK, organised their division, and coordinated onward delivery to a network of drivers and suppliers nationwide.

Analysis of EncroChat messages suggested approximately:

• 50 importations within the indictment period;
• a total quantity of around 1,000 kg of cocaine;
• profit of £60,000–70,000 per importation, totalling around £5 million over 2½ months.

The applicant’s personal involvement was substantial:

• 12 collections, totalling 117 kg of cocaine; and
• 57 deliveries, totalling a further 370 kg.

In total, he was directly involved with approximately 487 kg of high‑purity cocaine.

2.2 Firearms discovery

When arrested at his home in June 2020, officers discovered:

• a self-loading pistol;
• 25 unfired Parabellum calibre cartridges; and
• three magazines (one fully loaded, one partially loaded, one empty).

These findings led to separate counts of possessing a prohibited firearm and prohibited ammunition, each attracting a statutory minimum sentence.

3. Procedural History and Sentencing

3.1 Sentence at first instance

On 28 June 2024, the sentencing judge imposed:

• 16½ years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to evade a prohibition (cocaine importation);
• 5 years’ imprisonment for possessing a prohibited firearm (consecutive);
• 5 years’ imprisonment for possessing prohibited ammunition (concurrent with the firearm sentence).

The overall sentence was therefore 21½ years’ imprisonment.

Key features of the sentencing approach:

• The judge treated Mr Thompson as having a leading role within the meaning of the Sentencing Council guideline.
• The scale of the operation “far exceeded” category 1 harm (which is based on an indicative 5 kg of Class A).
• A 25% reduction was applied for a guilty plea.
• Firearms sentences were set at the statutory minimum but made consecutive to reflect the additional criminality.

3.2 The appeal and renewed application

A single judge of the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against sentence, giving detailed written reasons. The applicant then made a renewed application to the full court.

Before the Court of Appeal, Mr James Scobie KC advanced two central arguments:

1. The sentencing judge erred by placing the applicant in the leading role category rather than at the top end of the significant role category.
2. The total sentence of 21½ years was manifestly excessive when the principle of totality was correctly applied, particularly given the consecutive five-year firearm term.

Counsel also relied on:

• Mr Thompson’s previous good character; and
• the contention that he had become involved as a result of ill-health affecting his legitimate work.

4. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Constable J giving the judgment) refused the renewed application for permission to appeal. The court held that it was not reasonably arguable that:

• the judge’s classification of Mr Thompson’s role as leading was wrong; or
• the total sentence of 21½ years was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court:

• expressly adopted and endorsed the “very full reasons” given by the single judge;
• underlined the exceptional scale of the criminality (around 1,000 kg imported and 487 kg directly handled by the applicant);
• agreed that the Guideline expressly contemplates sentences of 20 years and above for the most serious commercial operations where quantities greatly exceed category 1;
• accepted that the firearms offences, being subject to statutory minimum sentencing, justified a consecutive structure under the Totality Guideline; and
• stated that personal mitigation and background factors had very limited weight in the face of such industrial-scale offending.

5. Sentencing Framework and Precedents Cited

5.1 Sentencing Council guidelines

While no earlier cases by name are cited in the extract, the judgment relies heavily on three key Sentencing Council guidelines (which, although formally guidance, operate much like binding framework precedent in sentencing):

1. Unlawful Importation of Class A Drugs Guideline
2. Firearms Guideline (for possession of prohibited firearms and ammunition)
3. Totality Guideline

(a) Unlawful Importation of Class A Drugs Guideline

The single judge quoted the guideline on culpability and role:

“In assessing culpability, the sentencer should weigh up all the factors of the case to determine role. Where there are characteristics present which fall under different role categories, or where the level of the offender's role is affected by the scale of the operation, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the offender's culpability.”

The guideline also contains a key passage on high-end conspiracies:

“Where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale, involving quantities of drugs significantly higher than category 1, sentences of 20 years and above may be appropriate, depending on the offender's role.”

The Court uses this passage to justify an “indicative sentence” of 22 years (before credit for plea) as consistent with guideline expectations for operations of this scale.

(b) Firearms Guideline

The single judge noted that, under the Firearms Guideline, the starting point for a single category A/2 offence (high culpability/lesser harm, but in serious criminal context) is 7 years. This is important because:

• The court emphasised that the sentencing judge could legitimately have gone above the statutory minimum.
• By confining the firearms sentence to the minimum 5 years, yet making it consecutive, the judge was in fact making allowance for totality.

(c) Totality Guideline

The single judge quoted the Totality Guideline principles for when consecutive sentences are appropriate:

“According to the Totality Guideline, an overall consecutive sentence structure will ordinarily be appropriate where, although the offending may be related, (a) it involves an aggravating element that requires separate recognition, or (b) one or more offences qualify for a statutory minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum or (c) the overall criminality will not sufficiently be reflected by concurrent sentences.”

The firearms offences fell squarely within these criteria, justifying and indeed pointing towards a consecutive sentence.

5.2 “Guidance of this Court” on huge conspiracies

The single judge referred to:

“the guidance of this Court for sentencing huge conspiracies and the enormous damage they do to our society.”

Although no specific earlier authorities are named in the extract, this signals that the approach in Thompson is intended to be consistent with existing Court of Appeal sentencing jurisprudence on very large drug conspiracies, especially where quantities dwarf the guideline’s category 1 reference points. The judgment positions itself as part of that line of authority rather than as a departure from it.

6. Legal Reasoning

6.1 Assessment of culpability: leading vs significant role

Mr Scobie KC argued that Mr Thompson, though very involved, should be placed at the upper end of significant role, not in the leading role category. His key points included:

• James Harding, operating from Dubai, was at the apex of the conspiracy, removed from the physical handling of drugs.
• Mr Thompson was more “operational”, dealing with day-to-day logistics and thus not a “leader” in the same sense.

The Court rejected this argument on several grounds:

1. Nature of Mr Thompson’s function
   He:
   • worked directly for Harding (topsking);
   • met lorries shortly after arrival in the UK;
   • organised division and distribution to other drivers;
   • had “substantial links to, and influence on, others in the chain”; and
   • had “close links to the original source”.
   These features match the guideline indicators of a leading role: directing or organising buying and selling on a commercial scale, exerting influence over others, and proximity to the source.
2. Importance of his role within the operation
   The Court emphasised that only two individuals were responsible for the totality of the importations. Thompson was effectively “the number one coordinator within the United Kingdom”. His role was indispensable to the UK-side functioning of the conspiracy.
3. Borderline categorisation is not decisive in extreme cases
   The Court acknowledged that it might be arguable whether he was “top of significant” or “bottom of leading”. However, it stressed that:

   “perhaps it matters not whether he is categorised as top of the significant or bottom of the leading role.”

   Because the scale of harm was so far beyond category 1, the precise label had limited practical impact. The overall sentence of 16½ years (22 years indicative) remained within the proper range either way.

6.2 Assessment of harm: quantities far beyond category 1

The Court highlighted the truly exceptional scale of the operation:

“It is hard to comprehend the quantity of cocaine … somewhere in the region of 1000 kilograms … within approximately two and a half months.”

Given that:

• the category 1 threshold in the guideline is based on 5 kg;
• Mr Thompson personally handled or arranged around 487 kg; and
• the conspiracy as a whole involved around 1,000 kg,

the case sat almost 100 times beyond the harm level contemplated for “ordinary” category 1 offences.

The guideline expressly recognises that in such cases the normal category ranges do not cap the sentence:

“Where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale, involving quantities of drugs significantly higher than category 1, sentences of 20 years and above may be appropriate…”

The single judge therefore reconstructed the 16½-year sentence (post-plea) to an “indicative” pre-plea figure of 22 years, and held that this was entirely consistent with the guideline’s contemplation of sentences “20 years and above” for such cases. The Court of Appeal agreed.

6.3 Use of EncroChat as an aggravating feature

The single judge expressly pointed to the guideline’s aggravating factor of:

“use of sophisticated methods or technologies in order to avoid or impede detection”.

The conspirators’ exclusive use of encrypted EncroChat devices, with multiple handles and an international command structure, clearly fell within this description. The Court therefore treated the EncroChat aspect as a legitimate aggravating feature justifying a sentence towards (and indeed above) the top of the normal range.

6.4 Firearms, statutory minimum, and totality

A central plank of the appeal was that the consecutive 5-year firearms term rendered the overall sentence excessive under the principle of totality.

The Court rejected this argument by a careful application of the Totality Guideline and firearms sentencing framework:

1. Statutory minimum sentences
   The firearms offences attracted a statutory minimum of 5 years. The Totality Guideline recognises that making such sentences concurrent can “improperly undermine that minimum”. This in itself supports a consecutive approach.
2. Separate aggravating element
   The presence of a prohibited firearm and ammunition in the context of a major drugs conspiracy is a distinct aggravating feature warranting separate recognition. Under the Totality Guideline, this too is a reason in favour of consecutive sentencing.
3. Potential for higher firearms sentences
   The single judge observed that under the Firearms Guideline the starting point for a relevant offence in a serious criminal context is 7 years. Thus, the trial judge:
   • could legitimately have passed a sentence above 5 years; but
   • opted instead for the bare statutory minimum.
   This indicates that the judge had totality in mind and was moderating the firearms element accordingly.
4. Overall just and proportionate
   The Totality Guideline requires that the final composite sentence be “just and proportionate” to the combined offending. The Court held that an overall sentence of 21½ years for involvement at a very high level in an industrial-scale Class A importation conspiracy, combined with possession of a prohibited firearm and ammunition, was not manifestly excessive and properly reflected the totality of the criminality.

6.5 Personal mitigation and “poor decision” argument

The applicant relied on:

• previous good character; and
• ill-health that had impacted his legitimate employment, allegedly providing context for his involvement.

The Court accepted that these factors existed but treated them as of modest weight in the face of the gravity and scale of the offending. Constable J went so far as to observe that describing Thompson’s involvement as “a poor decision” was something of an understatement.

The message is clear: in cases involving hundreds of kilograms of high-purity Class A drugs and millions of pounds in profit, personal mitigation of this kind is heavily eclipsed by the seriousness of the crime.

6.6 Standard of appellate review: “manifestly excessive” and “arguable error”

The Court repeatedly framed the question as whether:

• the sentence was “manifestly excessive”; or
• there was any “arguable error” in principle or approach.

It concluded that:

• the 16½-year sentence for the drugs conspiracy, viewed as an indicative 22-year sentence before plea discount, was entirely in line with guideline expectations;
• the role assessment was within the judge’s proper evaluative discretion; and
• the totality exercise was properly conducted, with evidence of conscious moderation in both the conspiracy and firearms elements.

On that basis, leave to appeal was refused.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 “Leading role” vs “significant role”

Under the Sentencing Council drug importation guideline:

• Leading role generally involves organising, directing or controlling the operation, often with decision-making power, influence over others, and close connection to suppliers.
• Significant role involves serious involvement and responsibility, but typically without the same degree of control or influence over the overall operation.

In Thompson, the Court held that someone who:

• works directly with the head of the conspiracy;
• organises large-scale distribution on the ground; and
• has substantial influence over others and proximity to the source,

can properly be treated as having a leading role, even if not at the absolute top of the hierarchy.

7.2 “Harm” and “category 1”

Drug guidelines usually divide offences into categories based on the quantity of drugs involved. For Class A:

• Category 1 is the highest normal level, based on an indicative quantity (here, 5 kg for cocaine).
• Higher categories (2–4) correspond to lower quantities.

When quantities far exceed the category 1 threshold, courts are not limited to the normal category 1 sentencing range. The guideline specifically anticipates that for “the most serious and commercial scale” operations with quantities “significantly higher than category 1”, sentences of “20 years and above” may be appropriate.

7.3 “Totality”

The principle of totality requires that when a court sentences for multiple offences, the total sentence:

• reflects all the offending behaviour and overall culpability;
• is just and proportionate; and
• is not simply the mechanical sum of each individual sentence without regard to overlap or overall fairness.

This may mean:

• ordering sentences to run concurrently (at the same time) where offences are closely related; or
• ordering sentences to run consecutively (one after the other) where they represent distinct aspects of criminality.

In Thompson, the firearms offences were treated as a distinct aggravating element, justifying a consecutive 5-year term.

7.4 “Statutory minimum sentence”

For certain serious offences—such as possession of prohibited firearms—Parliament has prescribed a mandatory minimum sentence (subject to specified exceptions, e.g., exceptional circumstances). For the relevant firearms offences, the statutory minimum was 5 years.

The Court stressed that imposing concurrent sentences which effectively neutralise this minimum can “improperly undermine” Parliament’s intention. This is one reason why consecutive sentencing is often appropriate where a mandatory minimum applies.

7.5 “Renewed application” and the role of the single judge

In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division):

• Applications for leave to appeal against sentence are first considered by a single judge on the papers.
• If refused, the applicant may make a renewed application to the full court.

In Thompson, the single judge refused leave but issued comprehensive reasons. The full court then:

• heard oral argument from Mr Scobie KC; and
• formally endorsed and adopted the single judge’s reasoning.

Although technically the case is a refusal of leave, the reasoning nevertheless contributes persuasive guidance on sentencing.

7.6 “EncroChat”

EncroChat was an encrypted communication platform widely used by organised criminals to conduct business under assumed handles. Law enforcement’s successful infiltration of EncroChat systems generated large numbers of prosecutions, typically involving:

• complex, high-level conspiracies;
• international networks; and
• significant drug and firearm quantities.

In Thompson, the use of EncroChat is treated not as a neutral technological fact, but as an aggravating feature under the sentencing guideline: it evidences sophistication and deliberate attempts to avoid detection.

8. Legal Principles Emerging from Thompson

8.1 Principle 1: Role assessment in very large conspiracies

Thompson clarifies that:

• A defendant need not be at the absolute apex of a conspiracy to be categorised as having a leading role.
• Where an offender:
  • works directly with or immediately below the head of the conspiracy,
  • coordinates major logistical aspects (such as distribution of large consignments), and
  • has significant influence over others,
  a leading role categorisation is clearly open to the sentencing judge.
• In exceptionally large operations, whether the offender is styled “top of significant” or “bottom of leading” may have limited impact on the ultimate sentence; harm and overall culpability will be decisive.

8.2 Principle 2: Sentences of 20+ years for industrial-scale importation

The case endorses the proposition that:

• For operations on “the most serious and commercial scale” with quantities vastly exceeding category 1, sentences of 20 years and above for the drugs conspiracy alone are squarely within guideline expectations.
• An indicative pre-plea sentence of 22 years (reduced to 16½ years for plea) is not manifestly excessive for a leading participant handling nearly 500 kg personally within a conspiracy involving around 1,000 kg.

This is significant for sentencing in future EncroChat and other large-scale importation cases involving industrial quantities.

8.3 Principle 3: Consecutive mandatory minimum firearms sentences alongside major drug sentences

Thompson confirms that:

• It is ordinarily appropriate to make statutory minimum firearms sentences consecutive to substantial drug sentences where:
  • the firearms offences constitute a distinct aggravating element;
  • a statutory minimum applies; and/or
  • concurrent sentences would inadequately reflect overall criminality.
• Even where the resultant total sentence exceeds 20 years, this will not be regarded as manifestly excessive if the constituent sentences are individually justified and the overall total is just and proportionate.

8.4 Principle 4: Limited weight of personal mitigation in industrial-scale Class A offending

The judgment underlines that:

• Previous good character and adverse personal circumstances (such as ill-health) have limited mitigating force where an offender voluntarily participates at a high level in massive, highly profitable Class A conspiracies.
• Such factors may reduce sentence within a range but will not drastically alter the outcome where the primary drivers are scale of harm, level of organisation, sophistication and societal damage.

9. Impact on Future Cases

9.1 EncroChat and similar digital-evidence conspiracies

The case provides clear signals to both prosecution and defence in EncroChat-style cases:

• The Court is prepared to endorse very high sentences (20+ years) for substantial conspiracies uncovered by encrypted communications.
• Use of such encrypted platforms can properly be treated as an aggravating feature—evidence of sophistication and deliberate evasion of detection.
• Attempts to downplay a defendant’s role as merely “operational” or “hands-on” will not succeed where the evidence shows direct linkage to the head of the conspiracy and day-to-day coordination of major logistical functions.

9.2 Firearms found in drug traffickers’ premises

For cases where prohibited firearms are discovered alongside drug operations, Thompson supports:

• the routine imposition of consecutive statutory minimum firearms sentences; and
• the view that this does not breach the totality principle, even with already lengthy drug sentences.

Sentencing advocates should therefore expect that:

• arguments for concurrency based purely on totality will face an uphill battle; and
• any mitigation on firearms will often be expressed not through concurrency but by keeping firearms sentences at or near the statutory minimum.

9.3 Guidance for sentencing advocacy and appeals

Practically, the decision suggests:

• Defence counsel must recognise that:
  • role categorisation arguments (significant vs leading) may carry limited weight where quantities are extreme;
  • focus should instead be on limiting the indicative starting point and maximising credit for plea and cooperation.
• Prosecutors can rely on Thompson to support high starting points where:
  • quantities far exceed category 1; and
  • the defendant plays a crucial logistical or coordinating role linked to the head of the operation.
• Appeals on totality will likely struggle where:
  • each element of the sentence is individually guideline-compliant; and
  • there is evidence that the sentencing judge consciously moderated components in light of totality (as here, via the statutory minimum firearms term and an indicative 22-year starting point for drugs).

10. Conclusion

R v Thompson [2025] EWCA Crim 1517 stands as a robust affirmation of the courts’ willingness to impose and uphold very substantial sentences for industrial-scale Class A conspiracies revealed through EncroChat and similar technologies. It clarifies that:

• those who, although not the ultimate heads of a conspiracy, function as key coordinators directly beneath them may be correctly treated as having a leading role;
• for operations involving quantities of cocaine far beyond the guideline’s category 1 threshold, sentences of 20 years and above are consistent with the Sentencing Council’s expectations;
• statutory minimum firearms sentences may legitimately be made consecutive to long drug sentences without breaching the totality principle; and
• personal mitigation is of diminished significance where the criminality involves hundreds of kilograms of Class A drugs and multi‑million‑pound profits.

Although this is formally a refusal of leave rather than a fully argued guideline judgment, the Court’s detailed adoption of the single judge’s reasoning provides clear and authoritative guidance. For practitioners, Thompson is a key reference point in advising on sentencing exposure and appeal prospects in major drug importation and associated firearms cases, particularly those uncovered through sophisticated encrypted communications.