McLoughlin, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 21 February 2024, in the Crown Court at The City, the applicant pleaded guilty upon re-arraignment to one count of dealing with goods with fraudulent intent, two counts of conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of Class A, and one count of conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of Class B. On 27 March 2024, before Judge Driver KC, the applicant was sentenced to 14 years and four months' imprisonment. The applicant's co-accused pleaded guilty to the same charges and was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

The applicant now seeks a 14-day extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against the sentence after refusal by the single judge.

The criminal conduct occurred between 26 March 2020 and 17 February 2021 and involved dealing in Ketamine with fraudulent intent, conspiracies to supply cocaine and heroin, and a conspiracy to supply Ketamine. The applicant and his co-accused operated a drug supply line using a phone number ending 6022, supplying Ketamine and cocaine to customers. The applicant primarily sourced the drugs and prepared deals, which were then supplied to users by the co-accused and another recruited driver. Communication and transactions were facilitated by encrypted EncroChat devices and later by disposable phones after the network was compromised.

The police estimated total drug supplies during the indictment period to be 1.77 kilograms each of Ketamine and cocaine. The applicant also arranged the exportation of Ketamine to Australia, including packaging and mailing 125 grams concealed in coffee bags. The sentencing judge adopted the conspiracy to supply cocaine count as the lead offence and considered additional conspiracies and exportation activities in sentencing.

The judge noted several aggravating factors, including the use of sophisticated encrypted phones, the conspiracy nature of the offences, and the applicant's significant criminal record, which included multiple previous convictions for Class A drug offences. The applicant was sentenced without a pre-sentence report, which was deemed unnecessary.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the applicant's offences within Category 1 of the sentencing guidelines for drug offences.
2. Whether the judge was correct to distinguish between the roles of the applicant and his co-accused despite an agreed basis of plea indicating equal roles.
3. Whether the starting point adopted by the judge was commensurate with the seriousness of the applicant's overall offending.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge incorrectly concluded the offences fell within Category 1 of the sentencing guidelines.
• The judge wrongly differentiated the roles of the applicant and co-accused, contradicting the agreed basis of plea that indicated equal roles.
• The judge adopted a starting point for sentencing that did not appropriately reflect the seriousness of the applicant's overall offending.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court upheld the single judge’s refusal to grant leave to appeal. It reasoned that the sentencing judge was justified in adopting a starting point reflecting the totality of the offending, which went beyond the lead count alone. The judge was entitled to categorise the offences within Category 1 due to the overall quantity and nature of the drugs involved. The distinction made between the applicant’s leading role and the co-accused’s lesser role was not inconsistent with the agreed basis of plea and was supported by the facts. The applicant’s significant criminal record and use of encrypted communication devices were properly considered aggravating factors. The judge’s allowance of a 10% reduction for the late guilty plea was deemed generous. The court found no error in principle or manifest excess in the sentence imposed.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME and DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL against sentence.

The direct effect is that the applicant’s sentence of 14 years and four months' imprisonment stands as imposed. No new precedent was established by this decision. The court reaffirmed the appropriateness of considering the totality of offending and the applicant’s criminal history in sentencing drug offences involving conspiracies and exportation.