Scaling Beyond the Guidelines: Court of Appeal Clarifies Uplifts for Mega-Scale Drug Conspiracies
Commentary on Blower & Ors, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 747

Introduction

The decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in Blower & Ors represents the most significant post-guideline statement on sentencing very large-scale Class A drug conspiracies since Khan and Welsh. Delivered by Lord Justice Holroyde, the judgment simultaneously determined:

• an offender’s own appeal against alleged manifest excess (Mark Blower); and
• a reference by His Majesty’s Solicitor General alleging undue leniency in respect of five co-offenders (s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988).

The case arose out of a sophisticated nine-run importation of between 2–3 tonnes of cocaine and heroin valued at £200–300 million. The Court had to grapple with offenders occupying different places on the hierarchy (from organiser to “dogsbody”) and consider how the Sentencing Council’s 2021 Drug Offences Guideline should be “scaled up” where quantities dwarf the guideline’s ceiling of 5 kg.

Summary of the Judgment

Key outcomes were:

• Blower’s appeal dismissed: sentence of 14 years 3 months upheld; not manifestly excessive.
• Solicitor General’s reference:
  • Day – sentence (6 years) lenient but not unduly lenient; left unchanged.
  • Dilworth – increased to 9 years 9 months.
  • Hague – increased to 14 years, subsequently corrected to 11 years 11 months (Addendum).
  • Menagh – increased to 9 years 9 months.
  • Fairclough – increased to 9 years 4 months.
• Principle established: When Class A quantities are “vastly” above Category 1, courts must apply a substantial upward adjustment to the guideline starting point before any deduction for role, plea, or mitigation. Personal mitigation attracts limited weight save in truly exceptional circumstances.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• R v Khan & Others [2013] EWCA Crim 800
  Confirmed that the Drug Offences Guideline (Supply) applies to conspiracies; emphasised conspiracy as an aggravating feature. The Court relied on Khan to justify treating the offenders’ participation in the wider enterprise as aggravating, even where they pleaded to substantive counts only.
• R v Welsh & Others [2014] EWCA Crim 1027
  Provided a methodology for differentiating roles in multi-handed, high-level drug conspiracies and observed that sentences at the top end cluster closely because of the upper ceiling of custodial terms. Welsh was quoted extensively for the notion that where the case sits “beyond Category 1”, sentences of 20–30 years may come into play.
• R v Kavanagh [2021] EWCA Crim 1584
  Cited for the obligation under s.63 Sentencing Act 2020 to consider harm intended, not merely harm caused, in conspiracies terminated by police action. Supported the Court’s view that because the importation would have continued, the potential future harm amplified culpability.
• R v Sanghera [2016] EWCA Crim 94
• R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 600

Relied upon by the Solicitor General to argue that routine personal mitigation must attract modest weight in serious drug trafficking.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court adopted a three-stage approach to each sentence:

1. Identify the appropriate provisional starting point under the guideline, ignoring plea and mitigation.
2. Adjust for quantity “vastly exceeding” Category 1 and for role (leading/significant).
   LJ Holroyde held that the Crown Court judge undervalued this uplift: e.g. for Dilworth the starting point should have been 13 years, not 10.
3. Apply reductions for (a) personal mitigation and (b) guilty plea (per the 2017 Reduction in Sentence for Guilty Plea Guideline).

The Court rejected comparisons with sentences imposed by another judge (Chester Crown Court) on different defendants. Parity is a consideration, but the Chester sentences were neither binding nor strictly comparable (Blower ¶55).

In finding undue leniency for four respondents, the Court stressed three propositions that now stand as guidance:

1. The starting point in mega-scale conspiracies should commonly lie above the top of the Guideline range even for significant-role offenders.
2. Personal mitigation beyond the commonplace (family hardship, prior good character) is generally of limited effect; only genuinely exceptional factors (e.g., Day’s combat-related PTSD) justify significant downward movement.
3. In ULS references, the test is whether the sentence is “unduly” lenient – i.e., outside the range a reasonable judge could have imposed – not simply whether the Court would have passed a higher sentence itself.

3. Impact on Future Cases

• Guideline deviation clarified: Sentencers now have authoritative endorsement to impose substantially higher starting points where quantities far outstrip Category 1. The judgment will routinely be cited in prosecutions involving tonne-scale or multi-million-pound drug conspiracies.
• Personal mitigation recalibrated: Defence advocates must frame mitigation to show exceptional relevance to culpability; routine good character/family impact will seldom warrant large discounts in such cases.
• Parliamentary & policy ramifications: The decision may inform future Sentencing Council revisions, possibly prompting a separate “Category 0” or explicit scaling guidance for drugs measured in hundreds of kilograms.
• ULS jurisprudence refined: The Court illustrated balanced intervention—declining to uplift Day’s sentence despite leniency—reaffirming that ULS powers are a safeguard, not a second opportunity to tweak sentences.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Category 1A (Drug Guideline): Highest category for harm (≥5 kg cocaine/heroin) combined with leading role. Guideline starting point 14 years, range 12–16.
• Scaling Up: Where the weight of drugs is “significantly higher” than the guideline maximum, judges may move beyond the published range (e.g., 20+ years) before considering mitigation.
• Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS): Under s.36 CJA 1988 the Attorney/Solicitor-General can ask the Court of Appeal to increase a Crown Court sentence that falls outside the permissible range.
• Manifestly Excessive: A sentence so high it exceeds what any reasonable judge could have imposed; the mirror image of “unduly lenient.”
• Newton Hearing: A fact-finding hearing where the defence and prosecution disagree on material sentencing facts.
• Concurrent Sentences: Multiple imprisonment terms run at the same time, the longest term sets the actual custody period.

Conclusion

Blower & Ors fortifies the sentencing architecture for large-scale Class A drug conspiracies, announcing that the 2021 Drug Guideline must be treated as a baseline, not a ceiling, where quantities are “vast.” The Court’s calibration of mitigation and its careful use of ULS powers will shape plea negotiations, sentencing submissions, and appellate reviews in narcotics cases for the foreseeable future. Defence practitioners must now confront a sterner landscape, while prosecutors gain clear authority to invite substantial uplifts beyond guideline ranges. Ultimately, the judgment balances proportionality with societal protection, ensuring that those who traffic in multi-tonne consignments face penalties commensurate with the catastrophic harm their trade engenders.