Chahal & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Before the court are two renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge. The applicants are two individuals involved in a conspiracy to supply controlled drugs on a scale exceeding the top end of the Sentencing Council Guideline. The conspiracy arose from a national police operation termed Operation Venetic, which uncovered an organised crime group ("OCG") using encrypted communication devices to supply substantial quantities of cocaine, heroin, and cannabis across the East Midlands over approximately eight months in 2020.

The lead applicant was identified as the leader of the OCG, with the second applicant having a leading but subordinate role. Both used encrypted communication devices. The co-defendants, including a courier with significant responsibilities, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs in the Crown Court at Leicester in August 2021. Sentencing occurred in June 2023, with custodial terms reflecting the scale and seriousness of the offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the "starting point" sentence adopted by the sentencing judge was excessively high for each applicant.
2. Whether the increase in sentence to reflect additional offending on separate counts was excessive.
3. Whether the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider available mitigation for each applicant.
4. Whether the assessment of the second applicant's role and seniority within the conspiracy was appropriate.
5. Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient regard to the second applicant's youth, withdrawal from the conspiracy, and other mitigating factors.

Arguments of the Parties

First Applicant's Arguments

• The notional 23-year sentence for a leading role in the principal conspiracy was "far too high".
• The aggravation of the sentence by three years to reflect additional offending was unjustified.
• The sentencing judge failed to properly account for mitigating factors, including remorse and positive steps during custody.
• A late oral submission criticized the sentencing judge's reference to deterrence.

Second Applicant's Arguments

• The notional 23-year sentence for a leading role was excessive.
• The sentencing judge overstated the applicant's seniority within the conspiracy.
• The judge failed to consider that the applicant was induced into offending by an older relative.
• Insufficient weight was given to the applicant's withdrawal from the conspiracy.
• The applicant’s young age at the time of offending was not properly considered.
• Other mitigating factors, including good character, difficult upbringing, and remorse, were insufficiently regarded.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by recalling established principles that sentencing guidelines for drug supply do not directly govern conspiracy cases, which require consideration of intended or foreseeable harm beyond actual quantities handled. The sentencing judge’s approach was scrutinized against these principles and relevant case law.

For the first applicant, the court noted his leading role and the vast quantities involved over the conspiracy’s duration, emphasizing that the conspiracy would likely have continued but for police intervention. The sentencing judge’s starting point of 23 years for the principal conspiracy, increased modestly for additional offences and prior convictions, was found to be within a reasonable range. The judge’s careful consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, including full credit for a guilty plea, was upheld. The court rejected the argument that deterrence references caused an improper uplift.

Regarding the second applicant, the court observed that the sentencing judge appropriately balanced the applicant’s significant but subordinate role, youth, withdrawal from the conspiracy, and other mitigation. The judge’s assessment of the applicant’s role was supported by evidence including messages indicating a number two position. The court found no error in the judge’s evaluation of role, quantities involved, or mitigation weight. The sentence was therefore not manifestly excessive.

Overall, the court emphasized the necessity of judicial discretion in complex, large-scale conspiracies and deferred to the sentencing judge’s detailed familiarity with the case absent any error of principle.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED both renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence.

The decision directly upholds the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge, confirming that the sentences were just, proportionate, and within the proper exercise of judicial discretion. No new precedent was established; rather, the ruling reinforces established principles guiding sentencing in large-scale drug conspiracy cases and affirms the court’s reluctance to interfere absent error of principle or manifest excessiveness.