BXF, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, anonymised as BXF due to risks of serious injury linked to his assistance to the police, was one of many defendants sentenced for conspiracy to supply Class A controlled drugs, specifically cocaine and heroin. He pleaded guilty to these offences and received concurrent sentences totaling nine years and six months' imprisonment. The offences involved large quantities of drugs imported into the country during a period affected by Covid-19 restrictions, which had increased drug prices and scarcity. Evidence was obtained through EncroChat devices used by conspirators, including the Appellant, who was involved in arranging drug deliveries and payments through a courier and had a close working relationship with a co-accused defendant. The Appellant appealed his sentence by leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the credit given for the Appellant’s guilty pleas was appropriate, specifically whether a 20% reduction was correct or if a 25% reduction should have been applied.
2. Whether the sentencing judge adequately considered all mitigation, including confidential information relating to the Appellant’s assistance to the police and other personal circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant’s counsel argued that the judge gave insufficient credit for the guilty pleas, advocating for a 25% reduction instead of 20%, emphasizing the meaningful difference this would make given the substantial sentence.
• It was submitted that the judge failed to give sufficient weight to all mitigation available, including confidential information previously provided to the judge.
• A further mitigation point relating to the ill-health of a family member was raised, although this was not before the sentencing judge.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The court rejected the submission for increased credit for guilty pleas, noting the sentencing complexities and the judge’s position to assess appropriate credit.
• The court held that the judge had properly taken into account all relevant mitigation, including confidential information, and that the appeal was not a re-sentencing exercise allowing new evidence.
• The court acknowledged the family difficulties but found these insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the offending and the need for a substantial sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Royle [2023] EWCA Crim 1311	Guidance on considering confidential information in sentencing	The court reviewed confidential information provided by the Appellant to the police and applied the principles from this case to assess the weight to be given in sentencing.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the necessity of anonymising the Appellant due to serious safety risks arising from his assistance to the police. It recognized the complexity of sentencing a large number of defendants involved at different levels of the drug conspiracy. The sentencing judge had carefully considered the facts, the role of the Appellant, and the co-accused, including the use of EncroChat devices and the scale of drug supply.

The judge’s approach to sentence reduction for guilty pleas was explained, reflecting the timing and circumstances of each plea. The court found no error in the judge’s decision to apply a 20% reduction rather than 25%, emphasizing the judge’s superior position to evaluate credit for pleas amid a large and complex case load.

Regarding mitigation, the court held that all relevant material, including confidential police assistance information, was properly considered. The court rejected the introduction of new mitigation related to family ill-health at the appeal stage, reinforcing the principle that appeals on sentence generally review the original sentencing without new evidence.

The court noted that the judge’s decision to sentence the Appellant equivalently to the co-accused, with a 20% reduction for guilty pleas, represented a substantial discount from the sentence that would have applied if the prosecution’s more serious factual case had been accepted. This demonstrated that the mitigation was sufficiently reflected in the sentence imposed.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence was DISMISSED.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant’s sentence of nine years and six months' imprisonment stands unchanged. The court’s ruling confirms the appropriateness of the sentencing judge’s approach to credit for guilty pleas and consideration of mitigation, including confidential information. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles regarding sentencing credit and the treatment of confidential material in appeals.