Roberts & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Attorney General applied for leave to refer as unduly lenient the sentences imposed on three offenders by His Honour Judge Ashworth at Portsmouth Crown Court following a trial on drugs conspiracy charges. The trial lasted 28 working days and involved multiple defendants, including the three offenders who were sentenced on 12 August 2024. The offences related primarily to conspiracy to supply cocaine over extended periods, with additional charges of supplying other controlled substances and possession of criminal property. The offenders were involved in a commercial cocaine supply operation in the Emsworth area of Hampshire, sourcing and distributing significant quantities of cocaine and other drugs. Evidence was derived from intercepted EncroChat communications and conventional telephone data, supported by physical seizures, including a notable discovery of nearly half a kilogram of cocaine in a vehicle. The sentencing judge categorized the offenders' roles and imposed custodial and suspended sentences accordingly. The Attorney General challenged the sentences as unduly lenient, leading to this Reference.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge correctly categorized the offenders' roles within the conspiracy according to the Sentencing Council guidelines on supply of controlled drugs.
2. Whether the sentences imposed on the offenders were unduly lenient, particularly in relation to the starting points and ranges for their culpability categories.
3. Whether the judge erred in his assessment of the offenders' roles as leading, significant, or lesser within the conspiracy.
4. Whether the sentence suspension for the third offender was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney General's Arguments

• Both primary offenders played leading roles in the conspiracy, albeit at different times, but this did not diminish their culpability.
• The judge incorrectly categorized their roles as significant rather than leading, resulting in lower starting points and sentencing ranges than appropriate.
• The starting point for leading roles should have been 14 years with a range of 12 to 16 years, reflecting the scale of the conspiracy and quantities involved.
• The judge underestimated the culpability and starting points for the supply of Class B drugs by the second offender, misapplying the guidelines.
• The third offender's role was more significant than found by the judge, warranting a higher starting point and an immediate custodial sentence rather than suspension.

Respondents' Arguments

• The sentencing judge, having presided over the lengthy trial and observed the offenders, was best placed to assess their roles and culpability.
• There was no evidence that the third offender was regularly dealing cocaine over three months or that he handled the half kilogram of cocaine found in the vehicle.
• The judge’s findings on role categorization and sentencing were reasonable and supported by the evidence presented at trial.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized that the categorization of offender roles within a drug conspiracy is an evaluative decision requiring a balancing of all relevant factors under the Sentencing Council guidelines. The judge's role is to weigh characteristics such as directing or organizing on a commercial scale, influence within the chain, and expectation of financial advantage.

Regarding the first primary offender, the judge found a leading role during an earlier period and a lesser role subsequently, which the court found to be a reasonable approach given the evidence of changing involvement over time. The second primary offender was categorized as having a significant role rather than leading, as the judge found insufficient evidence of directing or organizing on a commercial scale or substantial links beyond those below him. The court upheld this categorization, noting that influence over subordinates alone does not necessarily establish a leading role.

The court rejected the Attorney General’s contention that the judge misapplied the guidelines and found no plain error in the judge’s role categorizations for the first two offenders. Consequently, leave to refer their sentences was refused.

For the third offender, the judge categorized his role as lesser, noting his limited function under direction, involvement through naivety, and lack of influence over others, despite some awareness of the operation's scale. The court acknowledged some uncertainty in the judge’s downward adjustment from the guideline starting point but recognized mitigating factors such as youth, immaturity, and good character. The court granted leave to refer but declined to interfere with the sentence, affirming the judge's discretion in suspending the custodial term.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO REFER the sentences of the first and second offenders, thereby upholding the 9-year imprisonment terms imposed by the sentencing judge.

The court GRANTED LEAVE TO REFER the sentence of the third offender but DECLINED TO INTERFERE with the suspended two-year sentence, affirming the judge’s discretion in sentencing.

The decision affirms the deference owed to sentencing judges’ evaluative judgments made after lengthy trials and confirms that varying roles within conspiracies over time may justify differentiated culpability assessments. No new precedent was established; the ruling primarily impacts the parties by confirming the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.