R v To [2025] EWCA Crim 275: Industrial-Scale Spice Conspiracies and the Totality Principle in Sentencing

Introduction

This appeal arises from the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision of 27 February 2025 in R v Quyen To. The Appellant, Mr. To, aged 43, pleaded guilty to multiple conspiracies under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (sections 170), to conspiracy to supply a Class B controlled drug (synthetic cannabinoids known as “Spice”), and to possessing criminal property contrary to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. At first instance the Crown Court at Bristol sentenced him to a total of 16 years’ imprisonment, structured as consecutive and concurrent terms across four counts. He appealed on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, primarily because the learned trial judge had given insufficient weight to the principle of totality when ordering certain sentences to run consecutively.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that:

The enterprise was of “industrial scale,” involving importation, processing, supply and money-laundering over a four-year period, generating millions in profit.
The learned judge correctly applied the guidelines on leading roles and harm categories to arrive at starting points and ranges for each count.
He was entitled to impose consecutive terms for distinct criminal conduct—importation (counts 1 & 2), supply (count 3) and possession of criminal property (count 5)—to reflect separate facets of wrongdoing.
The judge had properly applied the totality principle by: (a) ordering count 3 to run concurrently; and (b) granting a 25% discount for early guilty pleas, amounting to a 2½-year aggregate reduction across counts 1, 2 and 5.
Overall, the 16-year sentence, though at the upper end of the permissible range, was neither disproportionate nor manifestly excessive.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The principal authority relied on by the Court was Wilson [2024] EWCA Crim 124. In Wilson, this Court emphasized that in multi-party conspiracies:

Sentencing guidelines should not be slavishly applied to each individual conspirator.
Harm assessment must consider not only the quantity actually handled by the defendant but also what the conspirators intended or foresaw.
Police intervention often truncates conspiracies; sentencing must reflect the full scope of planned or foreseen criminality.

The Court in R v To endorsed Wilson and adopted its approach, noting that “but for the very effective police action, this conspiracy would have continued into the future.”

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in several steps:

Identification of the separate criminal activities: importation (counts 1 & 2), supply (count 3), money-laundering (count 5).
Application of the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for each substantive offence:
- Counts 1 & 2 (Importation): Leading role + Category 1 harm → 8-year starting point, range 7–10 years each.
- Count 3 (Supply): Leading role + commercial scale → 6-year starting point, range 4½–8 years.
- Count 5 (Possession of criminal property): Laundering >£1 million → 7-year starting point, range 5–8 years.
Structure of sentences: consecutive for counts 1, 2 and 5; concurrent for count 3. This reflected both the distinct elements of the enterprise and the necessity to capture overall culpability.
Discount for guilty plea: 25% reduction applied to each applicable sentence, reflecting early and unequivocal admissions of guilt.
Totality principle: mitigated by (a) concurrency on count 3, and (b) aggregate plea discount amounting to 2½ years across the consecutive terms.
Evaluation of submissions on appeal: the Court found that the total sentence fell within the permissible ambit and that no further reduction was warranted.

Impact

This judgment clarifies key sentencing principles in large-scale conspiracies involving Class B drugs:

Sentences for distinct offences—importation, supply and money-laundering—may properly run consecutively to reflect separate criminality even when part of a single enterprise.
Where conspiracies are “industrial” and sophisticated, harm assessment looks to the intended scale, not merely the intercepted quantities.
The totality principle remains vital but does not preclude substantial consecutive terms when the overall structure of the offending justifies them.
Courts will give significant weight to early guilty pleas but will balance that against public protection and deterrence in high-profit drug conspiracies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Totality Principle: A sentencing rule requiring that the aggregate punishment for multiple offences be just and proportionate to the overall criminality, avoiding unduly harsh cumulative sentences.
Leading Role Factor: A feature of the Sentencing Council’s guidelines that increases a sentence when the defendant occupies a managerial or organizing position in the offence.
Category 1 Harm: The highest harm classification in drug guidelines, reserved for large-scale or high-risk operations with significant potential public harm.
Conspiracy Harm Assessment: In conspiracies, courts assess harm both by reference to actual quantities handled and the full scope of what conspirators planned or foresaw, recognizing police intervention may prematurely halt the operation.

Conclusion

R v To [2025] EWCA Crim 275 affirms that in sophisticated, industrial-scale drug conspiracies, sentencing must capture the separate dimensions of importation, supply and money-laundering. While the totality principle and discounts for early plea remain essential checks on excess, they do not preclude consecutive sentences reflecting distinct offences within a single scheme. The decision underscores the continued vitality of Wilson and provides clear guidance for courts handling future large-scale conspiracies involving Class B substances.