Timlin, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant was convicted on 11 April 2022 at the Crown Court at Warwick, before HHJ Potter and a jury, of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. On 4 November 2022, the applicant, aged 31 at the time, was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. The sentencing judge noted the applicant's two prior relevant drug convictions, which required a custodial sentence of at least 7 years unless particular circumstances made it unjust. The judge did not consider a pre-sentence report necessary. Leave to appeal against the sentence was initially refused by a single judge, and the applicant renewed the application.

The conviction related to a conspiracy involving the supply of Class A and Class B controlled drugs couriered from Liverpool and the Bickerstaffe area into Warwickshire, the West Midlands, Nottinghamshire, and Northamptonshire by an organised crime group. Numerous defendants were involved, some pleading guilty, others convicted after trial. Three defendants whose sentences were referenced in the applicant's appeal grounds were: the head of the organisation, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 years (reduced by 15% for plea credit) including firearms offences; a strand leader controlling a supply line from prison with a significant criminal record but no prior drug convictions, with a starting sentence of 16 years; and a supervisor of a local operation who pleaded guilty early, showed remorse, and was of good character, with a starting sentence of 12 years. The sentencing judge had presided over related trials and hearings involving these defendants before sentencing the applicant.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the applicant’s role in the conspiracy qualified as a significant management or operational function under the sentencing Guideline.
2. Whether the applicant’s health problems warranted a reduction in sentence.
3. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or unjust due to disparity with sentences of co-defendants.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred in concluding the applicant had a management function in relation to the Tachbrook Road address.
• The applicant’s health problems should have been considered as a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence.
• The sentence was disproportionate compared to those imposed on other defendants, raising a disparity argument.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge was best placed to assess the applicant’s role, having heard all evidence and observed the trials and sentencing hearings.
• Health issues do not automatically entitle a defendant to a lesser sentence, especially where there is no medical evidence and the public interest in punishment is strong.
• Disparity arguments rarely succeed and require a high threshold; differences in roles and circumstances justified the respective sentences.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court affirmed the sentencing judge’s findings that the applicant’s role was significant within the drug supply chain, specifically referencing the applicant’s management function over a key address and extensive involvement over approximately ten months. The judge relied on evidence including call logs, mobile phone records, and the jury’s rejection of the applicant’s defence. The court found the judge’s decision to impose a sentence above the Guideline range justified by the applicant’s lengthy and consistent involvement, substantial quantity of drugs, numerous supply trips, and two prior relevant convictions, including being on licence at the time of the offence.

Regarding health issues, the court noted the absence of medical evidence and emphasized that health conditions do not automatically reduce sentence severity, especially given the public interest in appropriate punishment for serious offences. The court rejected the disparity argument, highlighting the different roles and circumstances of co-defendants and agreeing with the single judge that disparity rarely succeeds absent a high threshold. The court found no sustainable basis for this argument.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The decision upholds the original 15-year custodial sentence, confirming the applicant’s significant role in the drug conspiracy and the appropriateness of the sentence given the facts and prior convictions. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reinforces established principles regarding sentencing discretion, management role assessments, health considerations, and the high threshold for disparity appeals.