R v Mir: Court of Appeal Endorses Robust Upward Adjustments for Multi-Drug EncroChat Conspiracies under the Totality Principle

Introduction

The decision in Mir, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 853) concerns an appeal against a 12-year custodial sentence imposed on the appellant, Mir, for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (heroin and cocaine) and conspiracy to acquire criminal property. All the evidence was harvested from EncroChat—an encrypted communication system widely used by organised crime groups. The core issues before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) were whether:

• the sentencing judge’s upward adjustment for totality was excessive, and
• the overall sentence therefore became manifestly disproportionate.

The appellant contended that the conspiracies to supply each drug and to launder the proceeds formed a single course of conduct and that the judge’s arithmetic effectively neutralised the mitigation and the one-third guilty-plea credit.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Sir Julian Flaux PQBD, Carr LJ, and Fordham J) dismissed the appeal. It held that:

• The sentencing judge correctly approached totality and was entitled—even obliged—to uplift the primary sentence on count 1 so that the overall concurrent sentence reflected all of the offending.
• Given the sophistication, breadth (two drugs, money laundering) and scale (≥ 10 kg), a notional sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment before credit would not have been excessive; therefore, the 12-year post-credit total sentence was within the proper range.
• The judge was “generous” in allowing full one-third credit because the plea was not indicated in the magistrates’ court.

Analysis

A. Precedents & Materials Cited

• Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality (2023 update) – The central authoritative framework that obliges courts, when imposing concurrent sentences, to consider whether a notional single-count sentence would under-represent the totality of offending conduct. – Key quotation relied on: “If a concurrent sentence is imposed, it will often be the case that the notional sentence on any single offence will not adequately reflect the overall offending… some upward adjustment is required…”
• Sentencing Council Drug Offences Guideline (2012; rev. 2021) – Category 1A starting point of 12 years for a “leading role” in supplying ≥ 5 kg of Class A. – The Court implicitly referenced this when observing that the judge could have selected a 14-year starting point to reflect Mir’s true culpability.
• Prior EncroChat appeals (e.g., R v EncroChat A [2022] EWCA Crim 1500) – while not expressly cited in the extract, the Court’s reasoning aligns with the trajectory of those authorities: EncroChat evidence per se is not an aggravating feature but the sophistication it reveals can be.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Role and Harm Assessment • Mir was a broker/middleman but the judge found his activity “extensive” and approaching a leading role. • At least 5 kg of each drug trafficked; thus firmly in Category 1A.
2. Aggravating Features • Prior Class A convictions (albeit old). • Sophistication: encrypted devices, concealment compartments, use of subordinates. • Multi-commodity and cross-border elements.
3. Mitigating Features • Serious ill-health, threats linked to drug debts, sentencing delay.
4. Plea Credit • The Court observed that “full credit” is typically 33 ⅓ % only where a plea is indicated at the first reasonable opportunity (usually the magistrates’ court). • Here, it was generous to apply the full credit.
5. Totality Calculus • Notional sentences: 8 years each on counts 1 & 2; 2 years on count 4 (all concurrent). • To avoid under-punishment for the laundering and second drug conspiracy, the judge lifted count 1 from 8 → 12 years (effectively adding 4 years). • The Court endorsed this structural method and noted it still under-reflected the true culpability which could have justified 18 years pre-credit.

C. Impact and Future Significance

1. EncroChat Sentencing Framework – The case consolidates a line of appellate authority confirming that EncroChat-based conspiracies can attract sentences at, or above, the upper end of Guideline ranges because the decrypted communications often uncover a sophistication and scale not visible in traditional evidence. 2. Totality Doctrine Clarified – The judgment expressly approves sizeable upward adjustments on a lead count where multiple concurrent conspiracies risk dilution of overall punishment. Courts can, and sometimes must, go outside the single-count range to achieve proportionality. 3. Plea Discount Caution – Defendants who delay a guilty plea until the Crown Court should not assume automatic entitlement to a full one-third reduction. This warning will influence tactical decisions in early hearings. 4. Money-Laundering as Integral but Punishable – Even where laundering is the “necessary consequence” of drug trafficking, it must be factored into the total sentence, not subsumed without uplift. 5. Guideline Flexibility – The Court reiterates that Guidelines are starting points, not straitjackets; judges may exceed category ranges where the combined harm and culpability demand it.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• EncroChat – A now-defunct encrypted phone system that promised anonymity; widely adopted by organised criminals until law-enforcement infiltration in 2020 exposed millions of messages.
• Conspiracy – An agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offence; no physical act of supply is needed if intention is proved.
• Leading Role vs. Significant Role vs. Lesser Role – Sentencing categories that measure a defendant’s influence, planning and gain within a drug enterprise. “Leading” includes directing others, controlling resources, or high profit share.
• Category 1A – Under the Drug Offences Guideline, supplying ≥ 5 kg of Class A drugs with a leading role; starting point 12 years custody.
• Totality Principle – Ensures that the aggregate sentence for multiple offences is just and proportionate, avoiding both excessive punishment and under-punishment.
• Plea Credit – Reduction of sentence for a guilty plea, capped at one-third when indicated at the earliest opportunity; diminishes as the case progresses.

Conclusion

R v Mir firmly establishes that where an offender orchestrates simultaneous conspiracies to traffic multiple Class A drugs and launder the proceeds—especially using sophisticated encrypted platforms—the Court is entitled to impose robust upward adjustments on the lead count to satisfy the totality principle, even if that moves the sentence beyond the ordinary Guideline bracket. It also cautions sentencing judges to scrutinise the timing of guilty pleas before awarding maximum credit. The judgment thus serves as a clear precedent for future EncroChat and multi-commodity trafficking cases, signalling a stringent sentencing stance and providing granular guidance on how to structure concurrent terms without sacrificing proportionality.