R v Claes [2025] EWCA Crim 1284: Twenty-year terms are justified for massive Class A importations at the top of “significant role”; using a legitimate business as cover is a leading‑role indicator

Introduction

This Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) judgment addresses sentencing for large-scale importation and supply of Class A drugs where the quantities involved vastly exceed the Sentencing Council’s Category 1 threshold. The appellant, Ruidi Claes, a Belgian national and international haulage operator, was convicted after trial of being knowingly concerned in fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing cocaine (Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, s.170(2)) and supplying cocaine (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.4(3)(a)). He received 20 years’ imprisonment on the importation count (count 1) and a concurrent 10-year term on the supply count (count 2).

The sole ground of appeal was that the 20-year sentence was manifestly excessive: the argument centred on whether the judge had over-assessed Claes’s role and inflated the starting point and uplift beyond what the guidelines envisage for a “significant role” offender. The Court dismissed the appeal, offering important guidance on scaling sentences beyond the guideline ranges, on how “leading role” factors may be identified (including the use of a legitimate business as cover), and on how “significant financial gain” should be evaluated in context.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court upheld the 20-year sentence, concluding it fell within the proper range for an offender assessed at the very top of “significant role,” bordering on “leading role,” who imported an “industrial scale” quantity of cocaine—192 kilograms, nearly 39 times the Category 1 indicative quantity of 5 kilograms. Key points include:

The sentencing judge was entitled to find two “leading role” indicators: (i) the use of the offender’s own legitimate haulage business as cover; and (ii) substantial links to and influence over others in the chain, evidenced by the messaging that showed Claes asserting control and direction.
Even if the offender’s overall role was ultimately placed at the very top of “significant role,” the sheer quantity warranted a substantial uplift, consistent with authority.
The Court expressly indicated that an expected fee of €15,000 constituted a “significant” gain in context, refining the judge’s first-instance view that it was neither substantial nor significant within this operation.
Authorities including R v Sarasli [2022] EWCA Crim 693, R v Bailey [2018] EWCA Crim 1640, and R v Wraight [2021] EWCA Crim 1968 support sentences around or exceeding 20 years for very large quantities, even for offenders assessed at the top end of “significant role.”
For true “leading role” participation in a case of this magnitude, sentences would be significantly above 20 years, recognising the “bunching” effect between 20 and 30 years for the most serious commercial offending.

On that basis, a 20-year term was not manifestly excessive; the appeal was dismissed.

Analysis

Sentencing framework and role categorisation

The Sentencing Council guideline for drug offences uses a matrix of harm (largely quantity) and culpability (role). Category 1 for Class A cocaine has an indicative quantity of 5 kg. For Category 1:

Leading role: range 12 to 16 years
Significant role: range 9 to 12 years

Crucially, the guideline recognises that for operations “on the most serious and commercial scale, involving a quantity of drugs significantly higher than category 1, sentences of 20 years and above may be appropriate, depending on the offender’s role.” The Court emphasised that quantity and role together drive the uplift, and that 20+ years is not automatic; the offender’s actual role remains determinative.

Precedents cited and their influence

R v Sarasli [2022] EWCA Crim 693: The Court underscored that even for very serious commercial-scale operations beyond Category 1, sentences of 20+ years depend on role. In Sarasli, the court treated an offender involved with 156 kg at the top end of “significant role” as warranting an after-trial sentence of 19 years (reduced to 18 years for mitigation). Claes aligns with that calibration and goes further due to an even greater quantity (192 kg) and clearer indicators edging towards “leading role.”
R v Bailey [2018] EWCA Crim 1640; [2018] 2 Cr App R (S) 50: On an Attorney General’s reference, the Court observed that in very large-scale, sophisticated operations, uplift beyond guideline tables is called for and is “not confined to offenders acting in a leading role.” For offenders assessed as at the top of “significant role,” a 20-year starting point was not precluded. That principle directly supports the outcome in Claes.
R v Wraight [2021] EWCA Crim 1968: For a conspiracy involving 120 kg cocaine, an after-trial sentence of 17 years was held proper for an offender at the top end of “significant role.” Claes involves an even larger quantity and stronger role features, rationalising the 20-year figure.

Taken together, these cases form a coherent line: when quantities substantially exceed Category 1 and the offender is at the top of significant role (or perched on the cusp of leading), sentences around 18–20+ years are viable; for true leading roles at that scale, significantly above 20 years will be justified, subject to the “bunching” constraint in the 20–30 year band.

The Court’s legal reasoning

The Court upheld the judge’s factual findings and role assessment. The evidence showed that Claes:

Used his own legitimate haulage business, and his established reputation as a trusted smuggler, to mask the importation—an archetypal leading-role indicator.
Exercised authority and influence: the messaging demonstrated he dictated aspects of the operation (“my way or no way”), adjusted delivery schedules, refused group communication, and managed “tokens” used to verify customers, showing operational autonomy and knowledge of the drug nature and scale.
Handled 192 kg of high-purity cocaine (72–86%), with clear distribution staging and prior trial runs—pointing to a sophisticated, industrial-scale operation.

Although the judge ultimately placed the role “within the higher end of significant and at the very end of leading,” the Court accepted that finding and, if anything, indicated the financial gain aspect leaned more towards “significant” rather than neutral. On totality, the Court noted that for such an immense quantity, a substantial uplift was demanded. Importantly, the concurrent 10-year supply sentence reflected that the supply count was intrinsic to, and subsumed by, the importation conduct, thereby avoiding double counting.

Quantification and uplift beyond the guideline

The Court’s structure for uplift is explicit: begin with a role-appropriate benchmark at Category 1, then scale upward for quantities far beyond 5 kg, mindful of comparable cases. The Court observed that “for a role at the very top of significant,” 12 years would be appropriate for a quantity only moderately beyond 5 kg, but 192 kg—nearly 39 times the threshold—requires a “very substantial uplift indeed.” The Court then anchored proportionality by cross-checking against Sarasli (156 kg ≈ 19 years after trial), Bailey (massive-scale with 142 kg in one seizure and more trips ≈ 19–20 years), and Wraight (120 kg ≈ 17 years). In that spectrum, 20 years for Claes is at the upper end but properly so.

Treatment of financial gain

The first-instance judge accepted that the expected €15,000 fee was not “substantial” or even “significant” within the scale of the operation. The Court of Appeal expressed respectful disagreement on the latter point, stating it was significant. This matters because role categorisation expressly considers expected financial advantage. The appellate clarification sets a practical marker: even in vast conspiracies with astronomical street values, a five-figure fee can still be “significant gain” for role analysis. That refinement nudges similar cases towards higher culpability brackets where other indicators align.

Aggravating and mitigating factors

The Court endorsed the trial judge’s balanced approach:

Aggravation: prior drug-related convictions in Belgium and the fact that the instant offending occurred within the operational period of a suspended sentence (albeit not activatable in England) supported higher culpability.
Mitigation: age (in his early 60s), positive personal references, a strong work history, good behaviour in custody, and the hardship of serving a sentence away from home. The Court accepted these but found they could not outweigh the overarching seriousness.

Addressing the “hired gun” submission

The defence characterised Claes as a “hired gun”—a courier rather than an organiser. The Court rejected that characterisation based on the messaging and conduct showing initiative, decision-making, and influence, plus the defendant’s own admissions of smuggling experience and bargaining leverage over the putative organiser. A courier who asserts operational control, adjusts logistics, and marshals tokens transcends a limited-function role.

Appellate review standard: “manifestly excessive”

The test is not whether the appellate court would have passed the same sentence, but whether the sentence is outside the range of reasonable responses—i.e., manifestly excessive. Here, given the role findings and the extraordinary quantity, the 20-year term fell within the appropriate (albeit upper) range.

Impact and practical implications

Calibration beyond the guideline ranges: For quantities many multiples of Category 1, courts will scale significantly above the table ranges. For top-of-“significant role” offenders dealing with industrial quantities, 18–20+ years is well within reach; true leading roles may go “significantly in excess of 20.”
Role inflation through conduct: “Courier” labels will not prevail where evidence shows autonomy, influence, and operational decision-making. Messaging, token-control, and scheduling are powerful indicators that push offenders toward the top of significant or into leading.
Legitimate business as cover: Using one’s own legitimate enterprise to facilitate importation is a strong indicator of leading role. Reputable access to supply chains can aggravate culpability.
Financial gain assessment: Fees of the order of €15,000 may constitute “significant” gain even in huge conspiracies, affecting role categorisation and sentence length.
Comparative anchors: Advocates should be prepared to cite Sarasli (156 kg ≈ 18–19 years), Bailey (142 kg plus multiple trips ≈ 19–20 years), and Wraight (120 kg ≈ 17 years) to triangulate proportionality. Claes (192 kg = 20 years after trial) extends and consolidates that spectrum.
Concurrent sentencing for linked supply counts: Where supply is intrinsic to importation, concurrency and totality principles avoid double punishment but will not materially reduce headline sentences driven by importation culpability and harm.
Foreign suspended sentences as aggravation: Even though foreign suspended sentences cannot be activated in England and Wales, offending during their operational period properly aggravates.

Complex concepts simplified

Category 1 (Class A): The highest harm category in the drug guideline, pegged to an indicative quantity (5 kg for cocaine). It sets starting points and ranges that are then adjusted for role and case-specific factors.
Role (leading / significant / lesser): A measure of culpability. Leading role denotes direction and control; significant role covers important operational functions with some autonomy; lesser role captures limited-function couriers acting under direction with little understanding or influence.
Uplift beyond guidelines: When quantities are far above Category 1, the court may move beyond the table ranges. The uplift is driven by both quantity and role, cross-checked against comparable cases.
“Bunching” between 20 and 30 years: At the apex of seriousness, fine gradations become compressed; courts commonly “bunch” sentences within a narrower band because the scale for differentiating roles and quantities gets tighter.
“Manifestly excessive”: An appellate standard. A sentence will be interfered with only if it falls outside the range of reasonable sentences for the offence and offender.
Attorney General’s Reference: A mechanism for the AG to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal. Bailey and Wraight were such references, generating comparators for high-end drug sentencing.
Tokens: In this case, images (e.g., of £5 notes with serial numbers) used to verify the identity of customers receiving consignments—a sign of sophisticated operations and the offender’s knowledge/participation.

Conclusion

R v Claes clarifies and consolidates sentencing practice at the very top of Class A drug offending. The Court confirms that:

Where quantities massively exceed Category 1, very substantial uplifts are warranted; for offenders at the top of “significant role,” sentences around 20 years are appropriate; for true leading roles at such scale, “significantly in excess of 20 years” is justified.
Using a legitimate business as cover and exercising influence over logistics are reliable “leading role” indicators. The “hired gun” narrative will be rejected where evidence shows autonomy and control.
An expected fee of €15,000 counts as “significant” financial gain for role analysis, even amid huge conspiracies.

Placed alongside Sarasli, Bailey, and Wraight, Claes provides a clear proportionality ladder for industrial-scale cocaine importations: 17–19 years at the top of “significant role” for 120–156 kg, and 20 years for 192 kg at the cusp of leading, with the prospect of sentences well above 20 years for unequivocal leading roles. The decision offers prosecutors, defence practitioners, and judges a principled framework for scaling beyond the guideline tables, grounded in role-specific culpability and the extreme harm represented by multi-hundred-kilogram Class A importations.