Sanghera & Ors v R

Factual and Procedural Background

The four appellants participated in a conspiracy to import cocaine directly from Mexico to the United Kingdom aboard British Airways transatlantic flights. The drugs were concealed in innocuous packages and unloaded at a British Airways warehouse at Heathrow Airport, where corrupt employees facilitated the bypassing of security and the retrieval of the cocaine by couriers using false documents. Two shipments were disrupted by police in 2013, involving nearly 40 kilograms of cocaine and 100 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

Following surveillance and investigations, the appellants were charged with conspiracy to import or supply cocaine and, in one case, conspiracy to import ammunition. Initial pleas varied, with some appellants initially limiting their admissions to involvement in the later shipment only. After delays, all appellants were sentenced in March 2015 by the Crown Court at Southwark. The sentences were subsequently appealed by leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants for conspiracy to import and supply cocaine and ammunition were appropriate given their roles and the quantities involved.
2. The extent of credit to be given for pleas of guilty, particularly where pleas were qualified or entered late.
3. The application of sentencing guidelines for class A drug offences, including the appropriate starting points and ranges for offences involving quantities significantly exceeding the indicative Category 1 threshold.
4. Whether the sentencing judge adequately differentiated between the roles and culpability of the appellants in the conspiracy.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant Sanghera's Arguments

• Accepted the substantial quantity of cocaine but argued that the maximum starting point of 30 years should be reserved for cases involving "massive quantities" far greater than 40kg.
• Contended the consecutive 5-year sentence for ammunition importation was excessive, failing to properly consider totality and credit for the late guilty plea.

Appellant Atkar's Arguments

• Asserted his role was at the lower end of a leading role and that he was the first to plead guilty, warranting appropriate credit.
• Accepted the Newton hearing findings but argued the judge's starting point was too high for his role.

Appellants Brown and O'Meara's Arguments

• Both limited their involvement to the August importation only.
• Argued that a starting point of 16 years (implied by the judge's sentence and discount) was too high for defendants playing significant but not leading roles.
• Brown's counsel also submitted that there was an unfair disparity between his client's sentence and that of a co-defendant involved in the February consignment; the court rejected this argument.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the scale and sophistication of the conspiracy, emphasizing the significant quantity and high purity of cocaine involved, the international scope, and the corruption of airport staff facilitating the smuggling operation. The court agreed with the sentencing judge’s characterization of the appellants’ roles, noting that Sanghera and Atkar occupied leading roles, with Sanghera somewhat higher in the hierarchy, and Brown and O'Meara playing significant operational roles.

Regarding sentencing, the court acknowledged that the indicative Category 1 quantity of 5 kg was far exceeded, justifying starting points above the guideline’s Category 1 range. However, it concluded that the starting points adopted by the sentencing judge were somewhat excessive given the quantity involved and the appellants’ relative roles compared to the most massive importations previously considered.

The court also addressed the absence of clear indication from the sentencing judge on the credit given for pleas of guilty. It assessed the timing and nature of each appellant’s plea, applying appropriate discounts: 20% for Atkar, 1/6th for Sanghera on the drug charge and 10% on the ammunition charge, and 20% for Brown and O'Meara. The court found that Atkar’s credit was diluted by his denial at a Newton hearing, while Sanghera’s was limited by the late withdrawal of his original plea basis.

The court reviewed relevant case law and sentencing guidelines, confirming the applicability of the definitive guideline to conspiracy offences, the principle that starting points for importation conspiracies may be higher than supply conspiracies, and that sentencing ranges tend to cluster at the upper levels due to the severity of offences and the limited maximum sentences available.

Ultimately, the court concluded that limited reductions in sentence were appropriate to reflect the appellants’ roles and the plea credits, while upholding the overall seriousness of the offences and the need for substantial custodial sentences to reflect the harm and culpability involved.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeals against sentence to the extent of substituting reduced custodial terms as follows:

• Plaintiff Sanghera: Sentence reduced from 30 years total (25 years for drugs plus 5 years consecutive for ammunition) to 26 years total (22 years for drugs plus 3 years consecutive for ammunition).
• Appellant Atkar: Sentence reduced from 21 years to 19 years.
• Appellants Brown and O'Meara: Sentences reduced from 13 years each to 11 years each.

The direct effect is to moderate the sentences imposed, reflecting a more precise application of sentencing guidelines and plea credits. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision applies established principles to the facts of a serious and complex drug conspiracy. The court reaffirmed that large-scale importation conspiracies involving significant quantities and sophisticated organisation justify substantial custodial sentences, but that sentencing must be calibrated carefully to the offender’s role and plea history.