Black, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty to offences including conspiracy to supply drugs, money laundering, and conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited weapons. On 9 October 2023, the Appellant was sentenced to a total of 21 years and six months' imprisonment by His Honour Judge Lodder KC at the Crown Court in Kingston Upon Thames. The Appellant appealed the sentence with permission from a single judge.

The offences involved conspiracy to supply cocaine (count 1), cannabis (count 2), conspiracy to acquire criminal property (count 3), possessing criminal property (count 8), and conspiracy to sell or transfer weapons (count 4). The sentences for drug and money laundering offences ran concurrently, while the weapons offence sentence was consecutive.

Police executed a warrant at the Appellant's residence in May 2022, seizing mobile phones and approximately £23,800 in cash with annotations indicating drug dealing activity. Analysis linked the Appellant to two EncroChat handles, revealing the scale and nature of his criminal role.

The quantity of drugs involved was significant: at least 9 kilograms of cocaine and 60 kilograms of cannabis. The Appellant handled over £1 million in cash from his own drug dealing and over £1 million on behalf of another organised crime group.

The defence argued the Appellant had a lower-end leading role, but the judge accepted the prosecution's view that the role was clearly leading, especially given the weapons-related evidence. Photographs and messages indicated the Appellant supplied firearms and ammunition for use within the drug operation.

At sentencing, the Appellant was 25 years old with seven prior convictions none serious or custodial. A forensic psychological report diagnosed ADHD. Character references and positive prison reports were submitted. The Appellant initially pleaded not guilty but changed to guilty shortly before trial, receiving a 17.5% credit for the plea.

The judge set individual sentences reflecting the seriousness and quantity of offences and applied reductions for totality and guilty plea credit, resulting in the final sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point of 19 years' imprisonment for the cocaine conspiracy offence was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the judge erred by double counting the weapons offence evidence in assessing the Appellant's role and imposing a consecutive sentence.
3. Whether the credit given for the guilty plea was insufficient, considering the illness of the Appellant's trial counsel.
4. Whether the judge inadequately accounted for totality in sentencing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point of 19 years for count 1 was too high and outside the established range for this category of offending, which is typically 10 to 16 years.
• The quantity of cocaine (9 kg) did not justify increasing the starting point from 14 years to 19 years.
• The judge engaged in double counting by using weapons evidence to both establish the Appellant's leading role and impose a consecutive sentence for the weapons offence.
• The credit for the guilty plea should have been 20%, as the Appellant was disadvantaged by his counsel's illness, which delayed his ability to plead guilty.
• The judge failed to give adequate allowance for totality in sentencing.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The court agreed the starting point for the cocaine alone would justify about 15 years but found the increase to 19 years appropriate to reflect the additional cannabis and money laundering offences.
• The court rejected the double counting argument, clarifying that the weapons conduct demonstrated the Appellant's role rather than aggravating the drug offences.
• The court found no merit in increasing guilty plea credit, noting the Appellant had full legal advice before initially pleading not guilty and that the subsequent plea process involved delays and tactical manoeuvres.
• The court held the allowance for totality was appropriate, including a substantial reduction for the combined sentences and a further reduction for totality between consecutive sentences.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the appropriate sentencing range for the cocaine conspiracy offence, acknowledging that the starting point for such offending typically ranged from 10 to 16 years, with an indicative starting point of 14 years for 5 kilograms. The court accepted that the 9 kilogram quantity justified a starting point slightly above 14 years but emphasised that the sentence had to reflect the additional serious offences of cannabis conspiracy and money laundering, each meriting substantial sentences. The court therefore endorsed the judge's overall starting point of 19 years for the lead offence.

Regarding the weapons offence, the court clarified that the evidence of weapons possession and distribution was relevant to establishing the Appellant's leading role within the drug conspiracy, not an aggravating factor warranting double punishment. The consecutive sentence for the weapons offence was appropriate due to the distinct nature of that criminality.

The court considered the credit for the guilty plea carefully, noting the Appellant’s initial not guilty plea, the delays caused by counsel’s illness, and the unrealistic and ultimately abandoned basis of plea. The court concluded that the 17.5% credit awarded was generous under the circumstances.

On totality, the court found that the sentencing judge had made a substantial allowance within the sentences for the drug and money laundering offences and had further reduced the consecutive sentence for the weapons offence to reflect totality principles.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL.

The sentence of 21 years and six months' imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court stands. The decision confirms that substantial sentences reflecting the totality of drug trafficking, money laundering, and weapons offences are appropriate and that careful consideration of totality, role, and plea credit is essential in complex multi-offence cases. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily affirms the reasonableness of the sentencing exercise in this case.