Derrane, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts on two indictments involving serious criminal offences including conspiracy to transfer prohibited weapons, conspiracy to supply various controlled drugs, possession of prohibited weapons, and possession of ammunition without a certificate. The offences were uncovered through intercepted communications on an encrypted messaging service between the Defendant, a co-accused, and others during late 2019 to mid-2020.

The Defendant was arrested following surveillance of a vehicle he was driving, which led to the discovery of firearms, ammunition, substantial quantities of cannabis, and cash. Subsequent investigations revealed his involvement in a large-scale and sophisticated firearms and drug supply operation, including heroin, cocaine, and cannabis. The Defendant was sentenced to a total of 19 years and 2 months' imprisonment on 1 March 2023.

The Defendant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence and for a representation order after refusal by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the Defendant was excessive or wrong in principle.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the assessment of the Defendant's use of the encrypted phone and the timing of intercepted communications.
3. Whether the sentencing judge adequately accounted for totality, personal mitigation, and time spent on remand in custody.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing figures were too high and did not sufficiently reflect the principle of totality.
• The Defendant was under significant pressure and had made notable efforts while in custody, which should have been given greater weight.
• The judge erred in stating that the Defendant had used the encrypted messaging phone since October 2019; it was argued that the Defendant's phone was only reviewed from the end of March 2020.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the Defendant's role in a large-scale and sophisticated criminal enterprise involving firearms and multiple controlled drugs. It acknowledged the high culpability and harm categories assigned by the sentencing judge, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the Defendant's key facilitator role.

The court noted the starting points for sentencing were appropriately high given the scale and nature of the offences, including a 20-year starting point for the firearms conspiracy and leading roles in the supply of Class A drugs. The judge had taken into account personal mitigation, previous convictions, and time spent on remand, applying reductions accordingly.

The court addressed the Defendant's arguments regarding the timing of intercepted communications and found that the evidence showed active and enthusiastic participation rather than reluctance. The Defendant’s message referencing only one bullet needed to kill underscored the seriousness of the firearms involvement.

After reviewing the submissions and the sentencing exercise, the court concluded that the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive, and that the judge had properly balanced all relevant factors including totality and personal mitigation.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Defendant's application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Defendant's sentence of 19 years and 2 months' imprisonment remains in force. The court did not set any new precedent and confirmed that the sentencing judge's approach was legally sound and proportionate given the facts and circumstances of the case.