Hook, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 31 March 2022, the Appellant was convicted at Nottingham Crown Court of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and conspiracy to transfer criminal property. On the same date, the Appellee was convicted of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. On 30 March 2023, the trial judge sentenced the Appellant to a total of 13 years' imprisonment, combining consecutive sentences for the two conspiracies. The Appellant now appeals against this sentence with leave granted by a single judge. The Appellee was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on the same date and has renewed an application for leave to appeal and an extension of time, which was refused by the single judge.

The case concerns two linked organised crime groups ("OCGs") involved in the supply of cocaine and heroin in Nottinghamshire between late 2019 and mid-2020: the Kinsella OCG and the Eastwood OCG. The Kinsella OCG, led by two individuals, obtained bulk quantities of cocaine from high-level suppliers and sometimes supplied the Eastwood OCG directly. The Eastwood OCG, with a leading member, distributed drugs to end users. The investigation was known as "Operation Boodle".

The Appellant acted as a courier for an upstream cocaine supplier connected to the Kinsella OCG, making multiple deliveries and involved in transferring large sums of cash. The Appellee worked with a middleman who liaised between the Eastwood OCG and upstream suppliers, arranging drug supplies during a short period at the end of the conspiracy timeline. Both conspiracies involved sophisticated communication via EncroChat devices. The sentencing judge described the conspiracies as involving multi-kilo quantities of Class A drugs, well above Category 1 under the Sentencing Council's drugs guideline.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly regarding the starting points and the imposition of consecutive sentences for closely linked conspiracies.
2. Whether the Appellee's sentence was unjust, manifestly excessive, involved a misapplication of the drugs guideline, and failed to achieve parity with co-defendants.
3. Whether the Appellee's application for leave to appeal and extension of time should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive as the Appellant's role was at the lower end of significant or upper end of lesser role.
• The starting point of 12½ years was too high, particularly given no evidence of transporting at least 5 kg of cocaine.
• There was double counting by aggravating the drugs conspiracy sentence for involvement in the conspiracy to transfer criminal property and also imposing a consecutive sentence for that conspiracy.
• The two conspiracies should have been treated as part of the same offending, warranting concurrent rather than consecutive sentences.
• The judge failed to adequately consider totality in sentencing.
• On the conspiracy to transfer criminal property, the Appellant's culpability was limited, justifying a starting point lower than five years.

Appellee's Arguments

• The sentence was unjust and manifestly excessive.
• There was a misapplication of the drugs guideline.
• The sentence failed to achieve parity with certain co-defendants who had different roles and received lesser sentences.
• The Appellee's role was distinct and less significant than other leaders identified by the judge.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the sentencing judge was entitled to find the Appellant had a significant role in the drugs conspiracy, justifying a starting point of 12½ years, with a reduction for mitigation. However, the court agreed with the Appellant's submission that there was double counting in aggravating the drugs conspiracy sentence for the involvement in the conspiracy to transfer criminal property and then imposing a consecutive sentence for that second conspiracy. The court reasoned that the criminal property conspiracy was effectively the cash proceeds of the drug conspiracy, making the two conspiracies very closely linked. Applying the totality guideline and the precedent in R v Cooper, Park and Fletcher, the court held that concurrent sentences were appropriate to avoid a disproportionate overall sentence. Consequently, the court allowed the Appellant's appeal to the extent of making the sentence for the conspiracy to transfer criminal property concurrent rather than consecutive.

Regarding the Appellee, the court accepted the trial judge's evaluation that the Appellee had a leading role, rejecting the submission that the Appellee was merely a call-handler. The judge's conclusions were supported by evidence of arranging meetings and directing activity between the Eastwood OCG and upstream suppliers. The court was not persuaded that the sentence was manifestly excessive or that parity arguments justified interference. The comparatively short duration of the Appellee's involvement was noted and taken into account by the trial judge. The court refused the Appellee's applications for leave to appeal and extension of time.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED IN PART the Appellant's appeal by ordering that the sentence for the conspiracy to transfer criminal property run concurrently with the sentence for the conspiracy to supply drugs, reducing the total effective sentence accordingly. No interference was made with the starting points or reductions for mitigation.

The court REFUSED the Appellee's applications for leave to appeal and extension of time, upholding the 15-year sentence as justified and not manifestly excessive.

This decision directly affects the parties by adjusting the Appellant's total sentence to reflect proper application of totality principles but does not establish new precedent beyond applying established sentencing guidelines and case law.