Glover, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Basildon to seven offences related to Class A cocaine, Class B cannabis drugs, and firearms, while being acquitted of four additional counts. On 27 September 2023, the Appellant was sentenced to a total of 23 years and 8 months' imprisonment by the trial judge. The sentence comprised concurrent terms for drug supply and possession of criminal property offences, alongside a consecutive sentence for possession of prohibited weapons and concurrent sentence for possession of ammunition without a certificate. No pre-sentence report was obtained or deemed necessary under the Sentencing Act 2020.

The sentencing judge found that the Appellant played a leading role in a large-scale cocaine conspiracy, dealing approximately 40 kilograms of cocaine over the indictment period, with significant criminal proceeds and use of firearms. The Appellant’s evidence minimizing his involvement was rejected following a Newton hearing, resulting in a reduced credit for guilty plea. The judge applied relevant sentencing guidelines and case law to determine the appropriate sentence. The Appellant subsequently sought leave to appeal against the sentence, which was refused by the single judge, leading to the renewed oral application now before the court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed for possession of prohibited firearms was manifestly excessive, including the appropriateness of the starting point and totality of the sentence.
2. Whether the reduction for the Appellant’s guilty plea was appropriately adjusted in light of the Appellant’s conduct during trial, particularly his untruthfulness at the Newton hearing.
3. Whether the overall sentence adequately accounted for totality principles and the relative culpability of the Appellant compared to co-defendants.
4. Whether there was an unacceptable disparity between the Appellant’s sentence and those of co-defendants, rendering the sentence manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

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

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the sentencing remarks of the trial judge, who found the Appellant to have played a leading role in a substantial cocaine conspiracy, close to the importation source, and responsible for at least 40 kilograms of cocaine supply. The judge found significant aggravating factors including the high purity of drugs, use of firearms (some loaded), destruction of evidence, and prior convictions. The Appellant’s version of events was rejected as untruthful, justifying a reduced credit for guilty plea.

Regarding the firearms offence, the judge concluded a 10-year sentence would have been appropriate after trial, reduced to 5 years to reflect the guilty plea and minimum statutory sentence. The judge properly applied principles of totality and concurrency, ordering the firearms sentence consecutively to the drug offences, and the ammunition offence concurrently.

The court rejected the analogy drawn by the Appellant between his sentence and those of co-defendants, highlighting differences in roles, culpability, offences, and plea timing. The judge’s sentencing decisions, including adjustments for totality and plea discounts, were found to be within the proper exercise of discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE.

The decision confirms the appropriateness of the trial judge’s sentencing approach, including the assessment of the Appellant’s role, the application of sentencing guidelines, reductions for guilty pleas, and totality principles. The refusal to grant leave to appeal upholds the sentence of 23 years and 8 months’ imprisonment plus the consecutive firearms sentence, with no new precedent established. The ruling underscores the court’s deference to the trial judge’s detailed findings and sentencing discretion in complex multi-count drug and firearms cases.