Dillon, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant pleaded guilty on 11 May 2023 at the Crown Court in The City to multiple offences including conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug, conspiracy to fraudulently evade importation prohibitions on a Class A drug, and possessing criminal property. The conspiracies involved the supply or importation of cocaine between 1 January 2020 and 15 February 2023, with co-conspirators both named and unknown. On 28 September 2023, concurrent sentences were imposed totaling 18 years and nine months' imprisonment. The Applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal his sentence after refusal by a single judge.

The drug conspiracies were uncovered following law enforcement's penetration of the EncroChat encrypted communication network in 2020, which was used to facilitate serious organised crime. Evidence primarily consisted of intercepted encrypted messages sent by the Applicant's EncroChat handle "deepoasis" from 14 March 2020 to 2 June 2020, showing communication with 24 other users.

Count 1 related to a conspiracy to supply approximately 19 kilograms of cocaine, with the Applicant acting as supplier and broker. Count 4 concerned a conspiracy to import about 50 kilograms of cocaine from Colombia, involving communications with a Colombian-based handle and the use of a dummy company. Count 5 involved a conspiracy to import 100 kilograms of cocaine from Holland and Belgium, with the Applicant facilitating a meeting between contacts but no further involvement evidenced. Count 7 related to the discovery of concealed cash at the Applicant's residence in 2023.

The Applicant had prior convictions unrelated to drugs, the most recent dating back to 2006. Following plea discussions, the trial was avoided and sentencing proceeded on an agreed factual basis.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in setting the starting point for sentences on counts 1 and 4 too high by failing to adequately reflect the Applicant's true role and involvement in the conspiracies.
2. Whether the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the agreed facts and the Applicant's role in the offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge failed to properly reflect the Applicant's mitigating factual involvement, particularly in counts 1 and 4, resulting in starting points for sentence that were too high.
• For count 4, the starting point should have been towards the lower end of the 20 to 30-year range for commercial-scale drug conspiracies, reflecting the Applicant's subordinate role compared to another conspirator and the limited scale of the Applicant's investment (£94,000).
• For count 1, the starting point should have been at or below the bottom of the 20 to 30-year range, given the Applicant's primarily brokering role despite a leading position.

Respondent's Arguments (as reflected in the single judge's decision)

• The sentencing judge carefully considered the Applicant's role and the scale of offending, concluding that the starting points fell appropriately within the 20 to 30-year range.
• Once within this sentencing band, differentiation for amounts and roles is compressed, and the judge's decision to place the sentence mid-range was open and reasonable.
• The total sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, duration, and sophistication of the conspiracies and the Applicant's involvement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Cavanagh [2021] EWCA Crim 1584	Guidance on sentencing for conspiracy offences, including assessment of overall scale and duration beyond captured evidence.	The court applied the principle that the sentencing judge may consider the conspiracy's full duration and scale, not limited to the data capture period, supporting the sentence imposed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court affirmed that the sentencing judge conducted a thorough and fair assessment of the Applicant's role and the overall scale of the conspiracies. The judge was entitled to infer the conspiracies extended beyond the encrypted data capture period and to consider the full scope of offending, consistent with the Applicant's basis of plea and the agreed factual position.

The court acknowledged the Applicant's leading but varied roles across conspiracies, including brokering and subordination to other conspirators. It noted the complexity and sophistication of the offences, including international links and use of encrypted communications. The sentencing judge's choice of starting points within the 20 to 30-year range, applying a 25% discount for guilty pleas, was deemed a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion.

The court emphasized that within the sentencing band, differentiation is limited, and the judge's mid-range sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Applicant's limited relevant criminal history did not significantly mitigate the seriousness of the offending.

Holding and Implications

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

The direct effect is that the original sentence of 18 years and nine months' imprisonment stands. The decision confirms the appropriateness of the sentencing judge's approach to assessing role, harm, and culpability in complex drug conspiracy cases involving encrypted communications and international elements. No new legal precedent was established.