Cracknell, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 25 May 2023, in the Crown Court at Winchester, the Applicant was convicted of conspiracy to supply a Class A drug (cocaine), conspiracy to supply a Class B drug (cannabis), and possession of criminal property. The Applicant received a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for the cocaine conspiracy and 3.5 years for the cannabis conspiracy, to be served consecutively, totaling 18.5 years. A concurrent sentence of 4 years was imposed for possession of criminal property. The Applicant was refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence by a single judge and now renews those applications.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in dismissing the application that there was no case to answer based on the reliability of mobile telephone data.
2. Whether the judge erred in admitting evidence of a previous conviction for conspiracy to supply cannabis.
3. Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, specifically the assessment of the Applicant's role and the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that the mobile telephone data relied upon by the prosecution was fundamentally unreliable due to anomalies, and thus no reasonable jury could convict based on that evidence.
• The Applicant argued that the judge was wrong to admit evidence of a previous conviction for conspiracy to supply cannabis, asserting it was irrelevant or prejudicial.
• Regarding sentence, the Applicant submitted that he should have been assessed as having a significant, not leading, role in the conspiracies, warranting a lesser sentence within the 9 to 12 years range for the cocaine conspiracy.
• The Applicant further argued that the consecutive sentence resulting in a total of 18.5 years was disproportionate to the offending.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first considered the application that there was no case to answer based on the alleged unreliability of mobile telephone data. The judge below had carefully evaluated the evidence, including expert verification of the data schedules, and found no significant question as to the data's reliability. The court agreed that the judge was entitled to conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer guilt if so minded. The multiplicity of links between the Applicant and co-conspirators, supported by the telephone data and other evidence, justified leaving the matter to the jury.

Regarding the admission of evidence of a previous conviction, the court noted the judge's reliance on established authority confirming that such evidence is admissible if relevant to an important matter in issue. The judge found that the prior conviction for cannabis supply was relevant to the issue of involvement in the current conspiracies and propensity to commit such offences. The court agreed there was no arguable error in admitting this evidence.

In relation to sentencing, the court acknowledged that the trial judge, having heard the evidence, was best placed to assess the Applicant's role. The judge's finding that the Applicant had a leading role was supported by the evidence and consistent with sentencing guidelines. The imposition of a consecutive sentence for the cannabis conspiracy was lawful, given different conspirators and drugs involved. The judge properly considered totality, reducing the cannabis sentence to reflect this, resulting in a total custodial period that was appropriate, proportionate, and just.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The decision confirms that the reliability of expert-verified telephone data can be sufficient to support a jury's verdict and that previous convictions may be admitted when relevant to issues of involvement and propensity. The sentencing approach affirms the trial judge’s discretion in role assessment and the imposition of consecutive sentences subject to totality considerations. No new precedent was established; the ruling reinforces existing principles applied to the facts of this case.