Eslick, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was convicted following a guilty plea on 29 October 2020 at the Crown Court at Exeter for conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug, specifically cocaine. This plea was entered four months after the plea and trial preparation hearing and three months before the scheduled trial date. On 27 November 2020, the appellant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

Two co-defendants, identified as Lester Purdy and Jake Purdy, pleaded guilty to the same offence and received sentences of seven years and eight months, and three years and four months respectively. The conspiracy operated from early 2019 until the arrest of the defendants on 11 May 2020. Lester Purdy was the organiser, Jake Purdy acted as his assistant, and the appellant was responsible for street-level sales and passing proceeds back to the Purdys.

The conspiracy involved significant quantities of cocaine, including 2 kg found near the Purdys' home and evidence of repackaging using a hydraulic floor press. The appellant was closely involved, evidenced by numerous visits to the Purdys' residence and financial transactions indicating substantial proceeds from drug sales. Sentencing guidelines were applied with consideration of the roles and harm caused by each defendant.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
2. Whether there was an unjustifiable disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of co-defendant Jake Purdy.
3. Whether the reduction in sentence for the appellant's guilty plea was appropriate compared to co-defendants.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that he received a lesser reduction (15%) for his guilty plea compared to 30% and 25% reductions given to co-defendants.
• The appellant claimed the sentence was disproportionate given the small quantity of heroin found on him compared to the quantities linked to co-defendants.
• The appellant asserted he pleaded guilty on the same day as one co-defendant but submitted his defence statement earlier.
• The appellant argued his sentence and credit should be equal to that of co-defendant Jake Purdy, whom he described as the leading figure, while he was an addict supporting his habits.
• The appellant raised the impact of remand imprisonment during COVID-19 lockdown conditions as a mitigating factor.
• The appellant claimed his sentence and credit should be the same as Jake Purdy's, despite the latter facing an additional charge of possession of criminal property.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the appellant's sentence in light of all circumstances, including the nature and scale of the conspiracy, the roles of the defendants, and applicable sentencing guidelines. The court found that the judge had been generous in categorising the conspiracy and in setting starting points for sentencing, particularly for the appellant who was placed at the borderline between categories 2 and 3 despite the prolonged and substantial street dealing.

The 15% reduction for the appellant's guilty plea was deemed appropriate given the late timing of the plea. The court rejected the appellant's claims of factual inaccuracies regarding the timing of pleas and the extent of reductions granted to co-defendants. It emphasised that sentencing must reflect the different roles and culpability of each defendant rather than simply the offence charged or quantities found at arrest.

Regarding disparity, the court applied the standard test of whether a right-thinking member of the public would consider the sentence unjust. It concluded that the modest difference in starting points and the greater reduction for Jake Purdy's earlier plea justified the variance in sentences. The court found no error in principle or manifest excessiveness in the appellant's sentence.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The decision confirms the appropriateness of the sentencing judge's approach to categorisation, role assessment, and credit for guilty plea timing. The ruling underscores that differences in sentence length among co-defendants are justified by differing roles, plea timing, and mitigating factors. No new precedent was established; the judgment reinforces established principles governing sentencing discretion and appeals based on alleged disparity.